⚖ Objections Against Shariah and the Double Standards of Secularism ⚖
✍ By: Shaykh Salah al-Sawi
The secular class raises the objection that "Shariah" is a vague and undefined concept, as each group presents its own version of it. To them, the Shariah of Khomeini differs from that of Nimeiry, the Saudi version differs from that of the Taliban, and so on.
Their demand is: “First decide which Shariah is actually required?”
➊ Allah’s Shariah is not ambiguous or unclear.
Allah has preserved His Book, the Noble Qur’an, which is a source of guidance till the end of time. For the past 14 centuries, the Muslim Ummah has held firmly to this Book. Anyone who sincerely seeks to understand Shariah can open the Qur’an and find guidance.
➋ The Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ is also preserved, compiled meticulously by the scholars of Hadith, and Islamic jurists (fuqahā') have formulated comprehensive legal principles based on it. They systematized jurisprudential differences on a scholarly basis.
These are rulings based on explicit and decisive evidence, such as clear Qur'anic texts or the consensus of the Ummah. There is no room for disagreement here; all Muslims are united on these matters.
These are rulings open to interpretive differences (ijtihād), and are the areas where various schools of thought (Ḥanafī, Shāfiʿī, Mālikī, Ḥanbalī) have differing opinions.
Differences in ijtihādī issues are not a weakness but a mercy for the Ummah. Due to this flexibility, Shariah is capable of addressing the evolving needs of different eras and regions. Jurists have adapted rulings based on local circumstances through evidence-based reasoning—thus facilitating ease and practicality for the Ummah.
When the objection is raised, “Which Shariah is meant?”, the same question should be asked of democracy:
Is it American democracy, British democracy, French democracy, or some other model?
➊ French democracy cannot tolerate a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf—is this true democracy?
➋ Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf also claimed to implement democracy in their nations. Were those examples of real democracy?
➊ Hosni Mubarak won elections repeatedly with "99% majorities," yet his corruption was never presented as a failure of democracy.
➋ Pervez Musharraf assembled a parliament and held elections—yet all of it was mere pretense. Still, it wasn’t seen as an indictment of democracy.
Those who believe in democracy never blame the system for its misuse. Instead, they claim, “Democracy was abused.”
But when it comes to Shariah, they hold it accountable for the actions of its followers.
Had the same sincerity been shown toward Shariah, no one would criticize it based on individual misconduct.
There is no single model of secularism:
➊ The UK model of secularism is different from the French model.
➋ Likewise, Marxism, Liberalism, and Chinese socialism all vary drastically from one another.
All of these claim to serve “humanity,” but in practice, they have only led to greater confusion and existential crises.
Even Marxism exists in many forms.
A French Marxist, Maxime Rodinson, wrote:
"Marxism is not a singular entity but exists in dozens of forms. Anyone can use Marx’s writings to justify their version of Marxism—just as anyone can use Biblical texts to serve their own agenda."
(Ref: Al-Islām wa al-ʿIlmāniyyah: Wajhan li Wajh, by Yūsuf al-Qarḍāwī, p. 185)
Shariah is rooted in:
These are preserved until the Day of Judgment. Its principles are clear and comprehensible for any sincere seeker.
➊ Democracy and secularism have no unified framework or stable foundation.
➋ These systems change every few decades and have only compounded human suffering and confusion.
Those who promote thousands of conflicting ideologies are the same ones who object to Shariah’s flexibility.
Ironically, it is precisely this flexibility within boundaries that allows Shariah to remain timeless and universally applicable.
✍ By: Shaykh Salah al-Sawi
❖ Summary of the Objection
The secular class raises the objection that "Shariah" is a vague and undefined concept, as each group presents its own version of it. To them, the Shariah of Khomeini differs from that of Nimeiry, the Saudi version differs from that of the Taliban, and so on.
Their demand is: “First decide which Shariah is actually required?”
❖ Response: The Source and Clarity of Shariah
① The Foundation of Shariah:
➊ Allah’s Shariah is not ambiguous or unclear.
Allah has preserved His Book, the Noble Qur’an, which is a source of guidance till the end of time. For the past 14 centuries, the Muslim Ummah has held firmly to this Book. Anyone who sincerely seeks to understand Shariah can open the Qur’an and find guidance.
➋ The Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ is also preserved, compiled meticulously by the scholars of Hadith, and Islamic jurists (fuqahā') have formulated comprehensive legal principles based on it. They systematized jurisprudential differences on a scholarly basis.
❖ Types of Shariah Rulings
Clear and Conclusive (Muḥkamāt):
These are rulings based on explicit and decisive evidence, such as clear Qur'anic texts or the consensus of the Ummah. There is no room for disagreement here; all Muslims are united on these matters.
Speculative Matters (Mutashābihāt / Ẓanniyyāt):
These are rulings open to interpretive differences (ijtihād), and are the areas where various schools of thought (Ḥanafī, Shāfiʿī, Mālikī, Ḥanbalī) have differing opinions.
❖ Differences Are a Mercy
Differences in ijtihādī issues are not a weakness but a mercy for the Ummah. Due to this flexibility, Shariah is capable of addressing the evolving needs of different eras and regions. Jurists have adapted rulings based on local circumstances through evidence-based reasoning—thus facilitating ease and practicality for the Ummah.
❖ Double Standards of Secularism
① Questioning Shariah, But Not Democracy:
When the objection is raised, “Which Shariah is meant?”, the same question should be asked of democracy:
Is it American democracy, British democracy, French democracy, or some other model?
➊ French democracy cannot tolerate a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf—is this true democracy?
➋ Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf also claimed to implement democracy in their nations. Were those examples of real democracy?
② Examples of Hypocrisy in Democratic Practice
➊ Hosni Mubarak won elections repeatedly with "99% majorities," yet his corruption was never presented as a failure of democracy.
➋ Pervez Musharraf assembled a parliament and held elections—yet all of it was mere pretense. Still, it wasn’t seen as an indictment of democracy.
③ Faith in Democracy vs. Faith in Shariah
Those who believe in democracy never blame the system for its misuse. Instead, they claim, “Democracy was abused.”
But when it comes to Shariah, they hold it accountable for the actions of its followers.
Had the same sincerity been shown toward Shariah, no one would criticize it based on individual misconduct.
❖ Secularism and Its Multiple Versions
① Contradictions Within Secularism
There is no single model of secularism:
➊ The UK model of secularism is different from the French model.
➋ Likewise, Marxism, Liberalism, and Chinese socialism all vary drastically from one another.
All of these claim to serve “humanity,” but in practice, they have only led to greater confusion and existential crises.
② Example of Marxism
Even Marxism exists in many forms.
A French Marxist, Maxime Rodinson, wrote:
"Marxism is not a singular entity but exists in dozens of forms. Anyone can use Marx’s writings to justify their version of Marxism—just as anyone can use Biblical texts to serve their own agenda."
(Ref: Al-Islām wa al-ʿIlmāniyyah: Wajhan li Wajh, by Yūsuf al-Qarḍāwī, p. 185)
❖ Shariah vs. Democracy
① The Firm Foundation of Shariah
Shariah is rooted in:
- Allah’s Book (Qur’an)
- The Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ
- The consensus (ijmāʿ) of the Ummah
These are preserved until the Day of Judgment. Its principles are clear and comprehensible for any sincere seeker.
② The Weakness of Democracy and Secularism
➊ Democracy and secularism have no unified framework or stable foundation.
➋ These systems change every few decades and have only compounded human suffering and confusion.
③ The Contradiction of Secular Thinkers
Those who promote thousands of conflicting ideologies are the same ones who object to Shariah’s flexibility.
Ironically, it is precisely this flexibility within boundaries that allows Shariah to remain timeless and universally applicable.
