The Big Three
The Great Democracy in Danger
Democracy and Sharia law represent fundamentally different approaches to governance and societal organization. Democracy is based on popular sovereignty, where laws are made by elected representatives and can change according to the majority's will. In contrast, Sharia is a divine, immutable legal and ethical system rooted in Islamic principles (Quran and Sunnah), prioritizing adherence to divine authority over human-made laws.
Source of Authority
Democracy relies on human reasoning, parliaments, and changing social values. Sharia relies on divine, unchanging revelation interpreted by scholars.
Accountability
Democratic governments are accountable to the electorate. Sharia-based systems are often justified as answering only to Allah, which can reduce direct government accountability to the people.
Law-Making
Democracy allows for the legalization of behaviors based on societal consensus, whereas Sharia defines certain acts as inherently forbidden or permitted regardless of public opinion.
Individual Rights & Equality
Secular democracies promote equal rights regardless of gender or faith, while traditional interpretations of Sharia may impose restrictions on women and non-Muslims, creating unequal legal status.
Scope
Sharia addresses not only criminal law but also personal conduct, religious rituals, family matters, and financial ethics.
Fundamental Conflict
Many argue that democracy and Sharia are incompatible because democracy requires the freedom to change laws, while Sharia is seen as unchangeable. That is very true
Pro-Sharia View
Proponents argue that Sharia is a complete, just, and divine system that protects essential necessities (religion, life, intellect, wealth, and honor) better than secular, "man-made" systems.Absolutely wrong , is there evidence that Alas is God? No only Mohammad knows that it is a false creation of a Satan to God, Muslims believe in Satan that is a fact
Pro-Democracy/Secular View
Critics argue that imposing Sharia, often driven by political Islam (Islamism), leads to authoritarianism, limits free speech, and suppresses dissent, making it fundamentally incompatible with liberal democratic values.
Reconciliation Efforts
Some modern scholars argue that Sharia principles can be interpreted to be compatible with democratic processes, focusing on justice and consultation (Shura), rather than strict legalism.
Myth #4 Islam has freedom of religion
It is often argued that the Qur’anic verse stating that “there shall be no compulsion in religion…” (2:256) affirms freedom of religion. For sure, nobody is allowed to coerce others into accepting Islam—but that does not mean there is ‘freedom of religion’ as understood in the west.
Sharia in the west?
Sharia is generally considered incompatible with Western legal and social systems due to fundamental conflicts regarding human rights, gender equality, and secular governance. Key issues include legal, religiously mandated discrimination against women in personal status matters, punishments viewed as inhumane, and the rejection of secular, democratic principles, which directly clash with Western, democratic, and liberal values.
Gender Inequality
Sharia laws often contain provisions that discriminate against women, particularly in areas of marriage, divorce, and inheritance, which contradict Western legal equality, notes the BBC.
Fundamental Rights
Certain Sharia practices, such as strict penalties, are seen as incompatible with modern human rights standards, says this Wikipedia article.
Separation of Church and State
Western systems are built on secular law, whereas Sharia seeks to govern both religious and civil life, creating a conflict with democratic, state-driven legal systems, say this article on Sharia in the West and this article about Sharia in the West.
Freedom of Religion
Sharia’s stance on apostasy (changing religion) is considered a violation of the freedom of belief and expression, a core Western value, argues this Forbes article.
Legal Pluralism Concerns
While some argue for limited Sharia, critics fear it undermines established legal, civil, and criminal frameworks, points out this IE Insights article.
The most common argument made in favour of a ‘progressive Islam’ is that the Qur’an and other scriptures can be subject to interpretation. We face an argument that confuses observation (“it was”) with suggestion (“so it should”). The argument implies that the Qur’an’s commandments change depending on where and when it is being read.
So, whereas the punishment for sedition is death in Islam, simply because of the fact that it is being read in a different period of time in a different place, the punishment allegedly no longer applies.
However, if the Qur’an changes depending on who reads it, then Qur’an itself does not have any commandments. For any devout Muslim, believing that God does not really command anything in the Qur’an is a major problem.
It is fundamental in Islam that the revelation from the Qur’an is to be applied after contextualizing through Hadith in order to reach an objective and time honoured verdict.
Myth #3 Jihad means “personal effort”
There are two primary meanings of the word jihad; the linguistic and the legal meaning. Saqib Qureshi claims that the only meaning of jihad is “sustained effort…to do good and prevent evil.” Anybody who has read the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (e.g. collection of Bukhari) will appreciate that every single time the word “jihad” is used by a Hadith, is in reference to war.
Whether or not jihad means ‘offensive’ war is a matter of debate, but it would be simply inaccurate to deny that jihad means war, and also that jihad was glorified by the Prophet Muhammad.
