Brief Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the Implementation of the Shariah

Islamic Discourse

Jul 13, 2024

This article will offer brief responses to the below frequently asked questions:

1) Does Islam teach that Muslims must strive to implement Allah’s Shariah in the territories they govern?

2) Could the application of Allah’s Shariah be enforced upon Muslims?

3) Should the application of Allah’s Shariah be subject to a Muslim vote?

4) Is the only viable approach to implementing Allah’s Shariah in the modern era through gradual means?

5) What does gradually applying the Shariah mean?

6) What are the arguments for and against the gradual application of the Shariah?

7) But Allah’s Shariah cannot implement itself; it requires the people’s will, correct?

8) What happens if the majority of Muslims reject Allah’s Shariah?

9) Does enforcing Allah’s Shariah on Muslims violate the Qur’anic ayah, “no compulsion in religion” [2:256]?

10) Would enforcing Allah’s Shariah on Muslims lead to hypocrisy?

11) Is the application of Allah’s Shariah irrelevant to Muslims living in non-Muslim lands?

Question #1: Does Islam teach that Muslims must strive to implement Allah’s Shariah in the territories they govern?

Below is a concise summary of six types of proofs demonstrating the obligation for Muslims to rule by Allah’s Shariah at a state level.

Proof #1: Quranic Ayat Mandating Reference to Shariah in Cases of Dispute

One notable example is Surah 4:59. This ayah imposes no limitations and thus encompasses the political, economic, and other realms where Islamic guidance is pertinent in resolving disputes. Another relevant ayah is Surah 42:10, which also asserts that the Shariah should be the ultimate authority in all matters of disagreement.

Proof #2: Quranic Ayat Commanding Governance by the Shariah

This is exemplified by Surah 5:44-45, which unequivocally obligate governance by the Shariah.

Proof #3: Quranic Ayat Prohibiting the Prophet from Following Human Desires in Governance

Surah 5:48-49 explicitly forbid the Prophet from conforming to human desires when adjudicating and ruling. The historical context involving the Jews and the practice of stoning further illustrates this point.

Proof #4: Quranic Ayat Denying Choice in Accepting Shariah Judgments

Surah 33:36 clearly states that individuals must submit to the Shariah in all affairs and do not have the liberty to choose whether to accept or reject its rulings.

Proof #5: Hadith Linking Political Obedience to Adherence to the Shariah

Several ahadith emphasize the importance of Shariah-abiding governance.

Below are some examples:

“There is no submission in matters involving God’s disobedience or displeasure. Submission is obligatory only in what is good (and reasonable).” [Saheeh Muslim, Book 20, Hadith 4535]

“It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen (to the ruler appointed over him) and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither listen to him nor should he obey his orders.” [Saheeh Muslim, Book 20, Hadith 4533]

“and not to fight against him [i.e., the ruler] unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah” [Saheeh al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 88, Hadith 178]

And so many others.

All of this evidence demonstrates that the concept of secularism—namely, the idea that Islam has no bearing on governmental rule—is unfounded.

Proof #6: The Consensus of the Sahabah in Combating Apostasy

Under the leadership of Abu Bakr, the Islamic Caliphate, with the consensus of the Sahabah, took decisive action to ensure that apostates submitted to the Shariah. They did not entertain the apostates’ concerns or conduct a vote to assess the legitimacy of their religious issues.

Question #2: Could the application of Allah’s Shariah be enforced upon Muslims?

The Islamic State holds a responsibility towards those under its authority, with a duty to foster an environment that minimizes immorality and promotes Islamic values to the best of its ability. Allowing immorality to spread within the Islamic State can have several detrimental consequences, including:

· Incurring Allah’s Wrath: The fear of Allah’s collective punishment for tolerating open evil is supported by a hadith where the Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “When the people see a wrongdoer and do not prevent him, Allah will soon punish them all.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

· Oppression of the Righteous: The proliferation of corruption emboldens immoral individuals to oppress and harm righteous believers.

· Spread of Ignorance: If vice is left unchecked, it may lead to the misconception that such behavior is acceptable in Islam, thereby facilitating the spread of ignorance.

· Unanswered Prayers: The Prophet (peace be upon him) emphasized the importance of promoting good and forbidding vice as a prerequisite for Allah answering prayers: “Promote the good and forbid the vice before you make dua to Allah, for He may not answer your dua otherwise.” (Tabarani)

· Alienation of Religion: When evil becomes widespread, the religion can become alien and foreign to its adherents.

There are numerous other harms associated with not enforcing the rulings of Allah, and the responsibility for these consequences largely rests on the shoulders of the Islamic State if it neglects this duty without a valid excuse.

Addressing the Argument Against Physical Enforcement

Some may argue that “promoting the good and forbidding the vice” is limited to providing advice and does not include physically enforcing rules and regulations. However, the historical practices of previous prophets suggest otherwise. For example, Prophet Ibrahim (‘alayhi assalam) demolished idols as an act against idolatry. Also, Prophet Musa (‘alayhi assalam) ordered the burning of the golden calf, which the Israelites were worshiping.

These actions indicate that promoting good and forbidding vice in Islam historically involved more than just advice—it included taking decisive physical actions to eliminate sources of immorality and uphold divine laws.

Various ahadith, historical practices, and scholarly consensus support the obligation to enforce Allah’s Shariah upon Muslims:

Ahadith Indicating Obligation:

Physical Struggle Against Evil: “He who strove against them with his hand was a believer” (Sahih Muslim)

Modifying Abominations: “He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand” (Sahih Muslim)

Future Enforcement by Jesus: “The son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig…” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Historical Practices of Enforcement:

The enforcement of Allah’s rulings was a practice of the four rightly guided Caliphs, the Umayyad Caliphs, the Abbasid Caliphs, and subsequent rulers. Detailed examples are provided in Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim’s article, Nizam al-Hisbah fi ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah, pp. 246-251.

Scholarly Consensus:

Scholars have claimed that it is a matter of Ijmaa’ that the one capable of physically enforcing good and removing evil is obligated to do so. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (d. 463 A.H.) states in at-Tamheed:

فَقَدْ أَجْمَعَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ أَنَّ الْمُنْكَرَ وَاجِبٌ تَغْيِيرُهُ عَلَى كُلِّ مَنْ قَدَرَ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِذَا لَمْ يَلْحَقْهُ فِي تَغْيِيرِهِ إِلَّا اللَّوْمُ الَّذِي لَا يَتَعَدَّى إِلَى الْأَذَى فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَا يَجِبُ أَنْ يَمْنَعَهُ مِنْ تَغْيِيرِهِ بِيَدِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَقْدِرْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَقْدِرْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَكْثَرُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَإِذَا أَنْكَرَهُ بِقَلْبِهِ فَقَدْ أَدَّى مَا عَلَيْهِ إِذَا لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ

“The consensus among Muslims is that it is obligatory to change the vice for anyone who can do so. If the only consequence of this [attempt to] change is blame (i.e., being blamed for the attempt) that does not extend to harm (i.e., your attempt to change did not directly cause harm), this should not prevent one from changing it with their hands. If they cannot, then with their tongue; if they are still unable, then with their heart. There is no obligation beyond this. If one condemns it with their heart, they have fulfilled their duty if they cannot do more.”

Examples of Physical Enforcement of Good and Forbidding Vice:

Levelling Elevated Graves: (e.g. https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/10/85)

Removing Sacrilegious Icons: (e.g. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/32 and https://sunnah.com/urn/180550)
Demolishing Shrines: This requires careful consideration in modern times due to the proliferation of such practices.

Confiscation and Banning of Alcohol: Specifically for Muslims.

Breaking Musical Instruments: While commonly mentioned in classical law, this might be subject to contemporary debate.

Enforcing Hijab: Particularly for Muslim women, though it requires nuanced discussion regarding non-Muslim women.

Enforcing Prayer: This remains highly debatable today due to population increases and differences in opinion on congregational prayers. There is a consensus that if a Muslim is known to neglect prayer entirely, the state can discipline him, provided it does not cause fitnah.

And so on.

For more examples and insights into differing views among various juristic schools of thought, English readers may refer to Dr. Michael Cook’s book Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought.

Some argue that enforcing such laws and regulations is ineffective because people are not positively responsive to such measures. Setting aside the fact that this is a gross generalization if promoting good and forbidding he vice is carried out effectively and with wisdom, it can indeed elicit a positive response. Moreover, this argument is fundamentally flawed. The duty to promote good and forbid vice is an Islamic obligation, and its implementation is not contingent upon public opinion.

Imam an-Nawawi stated in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:

قَالَ الْعُلَمَاءُ -رضي الله عنهم- وَلَا يَسْقُطُ عَنِ الْمُكَلَّفِ الْأَمْرُ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْيُ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ لِكَوْنِهِ لَا يُفِيدُ فِي ظَنِّهِ بَلْ يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ فِعْلُهُ فَإِنَّ الذِّكْرَى تَنْفَعُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“The scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, said: The responsibility of promoting the good and forbidding the vice is not dropped from the one who thinks that its implementation is not effective according to his personal opinion. Rather, he is obligated to do it, for remembrance benefits the believers.”

The state must adhere to strict conditions when enforcing good and removing evil. These include acting for the sake of Allah, considering the overall harms and benefits, and employing wisdom and diplomacy. Striving to meet these conditions is obligatory. It is not a valid excuse to abandon the duty of promoting good and forbidding vice simply because these conditions are not easily or instantly achievable.

Question #3: Should the application of Allah’s Shariah be subject to a Muslim vote?

Subjecting the application of Allah’s Shariah to a vote among Muslims undermines the authority of the Creator, elevating human authority over divine law. In doing so, “Allah’s Shariah” loses its significance and effectively becomes the “Shariah of the People.”

For Muslims who claim to believe in and submit to Allah’s Shariah, voting on its application is contradictory. It raises questions such as:

1. Why vote on something you already believe you should follow? Voting implies uncertainty or the need for human validation of divine commandments, which contradicts the belief in the inherent authority of Allah’s Shariah.

2. Why vote when you recognize Allah’s Shariah as the superior option? Acknowledging the superiority of divine law should logically lead to its acceptance without requiring further validation through a vote.

Over time, subjecting Allah’s Shariah to a vote would have detrimental effects. It would diminish the significance of divine law while elevating human consensus, leading to the “Shariah of the People” becoming the ultimate standard to abide by. This shift would undermine the foundational Islamic principle that Allah’s guidance is supreme and immutable.

Question #4: Is the only viable approach to implementing Allah’s Shariah in the modern era through gradual means?

The primary debate does not center on this issue. Suppose one’s ultimate goal is to apply Allah’s Shariah gradually, believing this to be the most practical and least harmful method. In that case, this approach is acceptable and subject to legitimate debate and discussion.

However, the main concern lies in the principle and stance that the application of Allah’s Shariah should be subject to a vote. This implies the existence of another governing system that is deemed superior to Allah’s Shariah, which is fundamentally problematic. The issue is not about using voting as a temporary means to an end; rather, some modernists view voting on the implementation of Allah’s Shariah as an end in itself. This perspective is considered blameworthy and is rejected by Islam.

Question #5: What does gradually applying the Shariah mean?

Regardless of whether one agrees with this view, it is essential to represent the position of those who advocate for it accurately. It must also be stressed that this discussion explicitly concerns Muslims who are not associated with pro-secular modernist perspectives.

When proponents of gradual Shariah implementation advocate for their stance, they do not suggest regressing to the Meccan era and resetting the Islamic timeline to progress back to the post-Medinan era. Rather, they advocate for acknowledging and addressing the current realities faced by the Muslim ummah, which has been influenced by ideologies foreign to Islam and has been exposed to distorted representations of Islamic teachings for several decades. Ignoring this reality is not feasible. Thus, the gradual application of the Shariah involves two key components:

1. Educating the Masses: This entails familiarizing people with the requirements of the Shariah, helping them understand and appreciate its principles. Scholars play a crucial role in this educational process by initially applying the more lenient aspects of the Shariah before introducing more stringent measures.

2. Transitioning from Secular to Islamic Law: This involves transitioning the ummah from living under secular laws to abiding by Allah’s laws. The transition should not be abrupt for two primary reasons: ensuring the shift’s success and maintaining its sustainability over time. This is a long-term endeavor.

In summary, “gradually applying the Shariah” means opportunely implementing its aspects, ensuring that the benefits outweigh the potential harm. The principle itself is not inherently a compromise. Although some have misappropriated this principle, subjecting the conditions of gradualism to democratic votes or modernist interpretations of “benefit” and “harm,” the theoretical stance remains valid.

However, acknowledging that this stance is not a compromise does not automatically validate its truth. Moderation and understanding the opposing perspective are essential in this debate.

The proponents of gradualism do not claim that practices such as alcohol consumption are “halal” until a certain time. Instead, they focus on the most effective and prudent methods for applying Shariah rulings. Criticizing them by stating, “Allah perfected His deen, and the revelation has finished,” misrepresents their position. They acknowledge this completion and do not deny it.

The gradualist camp argues for delaying the proclamation and implementation of certain Shariah teachings until appropriate. Both the gradualist and anti-gradualist camps have their respective arguments, which will be summarized in the answer to the sixth question below. The debate must remain healthy and academic, with all sides rejecting neo-liberal modernist compromise. The primary goal is the ultimate application of Allah’s Shariah, followed by proper scholarship and constructive dialogue.

Question #6: What are the arguments for and against the gradual application of Shariah?

Arguments Against:

1. The Divine Completeness of Islam: Allah said: “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (Surah Al-Ma’idah, Ayah 3).

This ayah indicates that all Islamic rulings have reached a state of completion and stability. Therefore, applying them gradually contradicts their finalized nature, as gradual application was only relevant before their final establishment by Allah.

2. Total Submission to Islam: Allah said: “O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 208).

This command requires full and immediate submission to Islam and its rulings, not partial or gradual adherence over time. Obedience to Allah must be complete and not partial.

3. Abu Bakr’s Response to Zakah Refusal: Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) did not gradually attempt to convince those who refused to pay the Zakah. Instead, he fought them to ensure complete adherence to Islamic rulings. None of the Sahabah contested Abu Bakr’s decisive action, underscoring the necessity of full compliance without gradualism.

4. The Subjectivity of Timing and Circumstances: Deciding when the time or circumstances are right for applying the Shariah becomes subjective, potentially leading to indefinite delays and avoiding the application of Allah’s rulings.

Arguments For:

1. Historical Gradual Revelation: The gradual revelation of Islamic rulings (e.g., alcohol prohibition) illustrates the method of applying Allah’s rulings. The wisdom of gradualism, which has been applied in the past, remains relevant today. This approach does not imply that alcohol is initially halal but rather emphasizes not overburdening people by considering context and circumstances.

2. The Hadith on Changing Evil: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whosoever of you sees an evil action, he must change it with his hand. If he is not able to do so, then (he must change it) with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest form of Faith” (Sahih Muslim). This hadith underscores the importance of capability. One must first hate the evil in one’s heart before speaking against it or using force. Thus, if some aspects of Shariah can be applied while others cannot, we should implement what we can until we can apply the rest.

3. The Prophet’s Consideration of Circumstances: The Prophet (peace be upon him) postponed killing Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salool, the leader of the hypocrites, fearing that people would accuse him of killing his companions. This example demonstrates the necessity of considering circumstances before taking action.

4. Ali’s Delayed Justice: Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) delayed applying the hadd punishment on the killers of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) due to his lack of capability or the potential negative consequences. This delay illustrates the importance of timing in applying Islamic rulings.

5. The Prophet’s Gradualism Advice to Muadh bin Jabal: The Prophet (peace be upon him) advised Muadh bin Jabal to practice gradualism in his approach. (Refer to the hadith in Sahih Bukhari).

6. The Suspension of Hadd During War: The Prophet (peace be upon him) advised against applying hadd punishments during times of war to prevent Muslim soldiers from deserting and joining the enemy ranks. This highlights that the application of hudud can be postponed until the appropriate time and circumstances.

7. Establishing Justice and Sustaining Islam: The ultimate goal of applying Allah’s rulings is to establish justice and ensure the prominence of Islam, which requires a sustainable approach. Rushed application without wisdom may alienate people, tarnish the Shariah’s reputation, and lead to its rejection due to perceived harms. The dispute is not about the necessity of full compliance with Allah’s rulings but about the prudent and wise manner of implementation.

Question #7: But Allah’s Shariah cannot implement itself; it requires the people’s will, correct?

That is certainly correct (and obvious); however, this is not the point of contention. One could similarly argue that Salah cannot be performed by itself and needs to be performed by people. However, that does not mean we say that Salah’s validity or obligation is contingent upon the people’s will. Allah has commanded us to perform Salah, and whoever does not do so without a valid Shar’i excuse is sinning. The same applies to the implementation of Allah’s Shariah.

There is no denying that applying Allah’s Shariah requires wisdom, due diligence, and consideration of the reality on the ground. Our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) destroyed the idols in the Ka’bah during the conquest of Mecca, yet a decade prior, he prayed at the Ka’bah while idols surrounded it. Islamically inclined political parties today must be strategic, flexible, and aware of their limits as they strive to implement Allah’s Shariah.

What must be avoided at all costs is distorting the Islamic ruling in this regard. We must also avoid becoming desensitized to secularism and neglecting this great obligation in Islam.

We must be careful when saying that the application of Allah’s Shariah “requires the will of the people.” If this implies that the will of the people matters more than Allah’s will, it has serious theological implications, such as:

· Treating the words of Allah and His Messenger with less importance and respect than the opinions of the majority, which would suggest that principles and values lack merit if not approved by the majority.

· Committing double standards. Most secular liberals would never claim that values such as freedom and equality are subject to people’s will and vote. Yet, if Muslims were to say something similar regarding Allah’s Shariah, it would be deemed unreasonable according to certain people!

· Treating submission to Allah’s Shariah as if it is merely spiritual, offering no worldly benefits. This ignores that Allah’s Shariah is a holistic set of principles, values, and laws that fulfill human needs and ensure justice.

· Accusing the Sahabah, who conquered new lands and applied Allah’s Shariah despite initially being a minority, of acting immorally.

· Suggesting that if Muslims form a majority, it becomes permissible for them to reject a command from Allah.

· Implies that majority votes could potentially override Islamic authority. For example, the majority might argue that the call to prayer (Adhaan) bothers them and vote to silence it or prevent state funding for masjid construction.

Question #8: What happens if the majority of Muslims reject Allah’s Shariah?

This question assumes that it was ever permissible for kufr (disbelief) and anti-Islamic stances to spread to such an extent that the majority of Muslims would reject being ruled by Allah’s Shariah. This is fundamentally impermissible, to begin with.

However, for the sake of argument, let us consider a couple of hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario 1: Secularism Wins by Majority Vote

Imagine a referendum where 51% vote for secularism and 49% vote to apply Allah’s Shariah. In this scenario, the state could negate the results of the vote because they are haram (forbidden) and simultaneously prevent civil discord and strife. Would Muslim modernists accept such a scenario? It is highly doubtful, reinforcing the idea that they prioritize democracy over Allah’s Shariah. Their argument that we must secure a majority vote is merely a smokescreen.

Scenario 2: Biased Promotion of Shariah

Consider another scenario where there is a referendum on whether to apply Allah’s Shariah, and the state forbids those opposing it from promoting their views to the public. Conversely, the state allows and even encourages those in favor of applying Allah’s Shariah to promote their views. This results in a majority vote for applying Allah’s Shariah. Would modernist Muslims find this acceptable? Again, no. This demonstrates that for them, the process of voting and securing a majority vote is not just a means to an end but the ultimate goal. This shows that they have abandoned the Islamic obligation to rule by Allah’s Shariah and have instead elevated secular democracy to a higher station.

Question #9: Does enforcing Allah’s Shariah on Muslims violate the Qur’anic Ayah, “No Compulsion in Religion” [2:256]?

Surah 2:256 specifically addresses the prohibition of forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam. By virtue of their faith, Muslims have already submitted to Allah’s commands. They believe that Allah, as the best of legislators, has established laws that are superior to all others. Therefore, enforcing Shariah on Muslims is not a violation of this ayah. Instead, it ensures adherence to the very faith they profess.

When Muslims sin, and their sins impact society, preventing those sins is consistent with Islamic principles. This does not violate the principle of 2:256 because one cannot force Muslims to convert to a faith they already adhere to! Rather, it is about holding them accountable to their beliefs, benefiting themselves and society.

For the sake of argument, let’s presume that applying Allah’s Shariah counts as “compulsion” against Muslims. In this case, it would be a positive compulsion, not the negative and blameworthy kind alluded to in 2:256. The ayah aims to prevent forced conversion, not the enforcement of religious law within an already Muslim community. Defining “compulsion” in its most generic sense would reduce Islam strictly to an inner spiritual faith without any influence on criminal law or societal matters, a stance clearly contrary to Islamic teachings.

Furthermore, there are double standards when applying this argument. If 60% of Muslims voted for the application of Allah’s Shariah, the “no compulsion in religion” argument would, by this logic, still extend to the 40% who did not vote in favor, and the modernists would still complain.

Question #10: Would enforcing Allah’s Shariah on Muslims lead to hypocrisy?

This argument posits that unless individuals willingly accept the enforcement of Allah’s Shariah, they will not sincerely submit to it, resulting in widespread hypocrisy. However, this contention has several flaws.

Inconsistency in Applying the Argument

Firstly, those who make this argument should apply the same standard to the alternative governance model they propose, typically secularism. It is impossible to achieve unanimous acceptance of any governance model. The same argument could be made for secular laws: if a referendum results in 55% voting to ban alcohol, wouldn’t this breed hypocrisy among the 45% who opposed it? Hypocrites existed even in Medina under the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) rule, indicating that some level of insincere compliance is inevitable in any system.

Societal vs. Individual Benefits

Secondly, enforcing Allah’s Shariah aims to benefit society as a whole, not just individuals. While individual insincere compliance (such as praying hypocritically) may not benefit the person spiritually, it does have societal benefits. The superiority of Allah’s Shariah ensures that its enforcement leads to a more just and moral society. Public sins being hidden rather than displayed can reduce societal corruption and promote a more virtuous community.

Exceptions vs. General Rules

Thirdly, while it is true that enforcing Shariah in certain ways, contexts, or on certain people might lead to harm outweighing the benefits, these are exceptions rather than the rule. Arguing that enforcing Allah’s Shariah generally breeds hypocrisy and should, therefore, not be enforced is fallacious. The general rule is the enforcement of Shariah for societal betterment, with exceptions considered on a case-by-case basis.

Understanding Hypocrisy in Islam

Lastly, it is important to understand the Islamic concept of hypocrisy (nifaq). A hypocrite (munafiq) is someone who outwardly pretends to be Muslim while hating Islam in his heart. Mere enforcement of Shariah does not make someone a hypocrite in this sense; such a person would hate Islam regardless. In fact, enforcing Shariah can hinder the plots of actual hypocrites who seek to harm the Muslim community.

Conclusion

Enforcing Allah’s Shariah on Muslims does not inherently lead to hypocrisy. Rather, it promotes a just and moral society despite the inevitable presence of insincere individuals in any governance system. The benefits of applying Shariah outweigh the potential for individual hypocrisy, and exceptions can be managed without undermining the general principle of enforcement.

Also see: Does the Enforcement of Sharī‘ah Law Cause Hypocrisy? by Dr. Fahad Al-'Ajlān

Question #11: Is the application of Allah’s Shariah irrelevant to Muslims living in non-Muslim lands?

See: Is the Application of the Shariah Irrelevant to Muslims Living in Non-Muslim Lands?

Further Reading:

- The Dimensions of Freedom in Islam: Part 1 - Introduction

- The Dimensions of Freedom in Islam: Part 2 - Identifying the Limits and Scope of Freedom

- The Dimensions of Freedom in Islam: Part 3 - Characteristics and Foundations of Freedom in Islam

- The Definition and Significance of Political Freedom in Islam - by Dr. Ṣulṭān al-‘Umayrī

- Freedom of Thought and Expression in Islam: by Dr. Ṣulṭān al-‘Umayrī

- Regarding the Modernist Misuse of the Claim That “Wherever There Is Justice, There Is Allah’s Sharī'ah”: by Dr. Fahad Al-‘Ajlān & Shaykh ‘Abdullah Al-‘Ujayrī

- The Correct Interpretation of the Statement “Wherever there is the Maṣlaḥa (benefit), then there will be the Sharī’ah of Allah”

- The Islamic Governance (as-Siyāsah ash-Shar‘īyyah) of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb - by Dr. Fahad Al-‘Ajlān