How is Sharia law different from Western law?
How is sharia law different?

In classical form, the sharia differs from Western systems of law in two principal respects. In the first place, the scope of the sharia is much wider, since it regulates the individual’s relationship not only with neighbours and with the state, which is the limit of most other legal systems, but also with God and with the individual’s own conscience. Ritual practices—such as the daily prayers (ṣalāt), almsgiving (zakāt), fasting (ṣawm), and pilgrimage (hajj)—are an integral part of sharia law and usually occupy the first chapters in legal manuals. The sharia is concerned as much with ethical standards as with legal rules, indicating not only what an individual is entitled or bound to do in law but also what one ought, in conscience, to do or to refrain from doing. Accordingly, certain acts are classified as praiseworthy (mandūb), which means that their performance brings divine favour and their omission divine disfavour, and others as blameworthy (makrūh), which has the opposite implications. However, in neither case is there any legal sanction of punishment or reward, nullity or validity. The sharia is thus not merely a system of law but also a comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public activities.

The second major distinction between the sharia and Western legal systems is a consequence of the Islamic concept of the law as the expression of the divine will. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, direct communication of the divine will to human beings ceased, and the terms of the divine revelation were henceforth fixed and immutable. The overall image of the sharia is thus one of unchanging continuity, an impression that generally holds true for some areas of the law, such as ritual law. However, revelation can be interpreted in varying ways, and, over time, the diversity of possible interpretations has produced a wide array of positions on almost every point of law. In the premodern period the ʿulamāʾ (Muslim religious scholars) held a monopoly over interpretation of the law, but since the 19th century their monopoly has been challenged by Westernized elites and laypeople. The question of which interpretations become normative at any given time is complex. Early Western studies of Islamic law held the view that while Islamic law shaped Muslim societies, the latter had no influence on Islamic law in return. However, this position has become untenable. Social pressures and communal interests have played an important role in determining the practice of Islamic law in particular contexts—both in the premodern period and to an even greater extent in the modern era.

