Critiquing Islam 2.0

10 Devastating Questions That Expose the Problems with Shariah

Islamic apologists claim that the problem with Muslim-majority countries is the failure to properly implement Shariah, but this is a self-contradictory claim.
If Shariah is a perfect divine system, then why has it never been successfully implemented in 1,400 years of Islamic history — not even under the "Rightly Guided Caliphs"?

Shariah is supposed to be clear and complete, but it is subject to endless interpretations:
- Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sufi vs. Salafi vs. Wahhabi.
- The four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) contradict one another on major issues.
If a divine system can be so easily misunderstood, then it cannot be clear or complete.

Countries that claim to strictly implement Shariah — such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan (under the Taliban) — are notorious for repression, human rights abuses, and lack of freedom.
If Shariah is a system of justice and mercy, then why does its strictest implementation lead to widespread oppression?

Shariah enforces gender discrimination in the name of divine law:
- Inheritance: A woman receives half the share of a man (Qur’an 4:11).
- Testimony: The testimony of two women equals that of one man (Qur’an 2:282).
- Marriage: A man can marry up to four wives, but a woman can only marry one husband.
If Shariah is divine, then why does it institutionalize gender inequality?

Shariah prescribes Hudud punishments that are inherently cruel:
- Amputation for theft (Qur’an 5:38).
- Flogging for adultery (Qur’an 24:2).
- Death by stoning for married adulterers (Hadith).
How can a system that promotes such brutal punishments be considered just, merciful, or divine?

Shariah is based on the cultural practices of 7th-century Arabian society:
- Polygamy, slavery, tribal warfare, and revenge.
If Shariah is truly a divine and universal system, then why is it so heavily rooted in the cultural norms of a specific time and place?

Shariah is supposed to be a divine law, but it cannot enforce itself. It is entirely dependent on:
- Human scholars (Fiqh) to interpret it.
- Human judges (Qadis) to apply it.
- Human rulers (Caliphs, Kings, Presidents) to enforce it.
If a divine system cannot function without flawed human involvement, then it is not divine.

Islamic apologists claim that many injustices in Muslim societies are due to "cultural practices" that contradict Shariah.
But these cultural practices are often justified using Islamic texts:
- Honor killings: Justified by the concept of "Ghairah" (protective jealousy).
- Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Practiced in Muslim countries using weak Hadith.
- Forced Marriages: Justified using Hadith about obedience to parents.
If Shariah is divine, why is it so easily contaminated by cultural practices?

Muslim-majority countries are often plagued with:
- Corruption.
- Injustice.
- Poverty.
- Sectarian violence.
If Shariah is the perfect solution to humanity’s problems, then why do these problems exist even in countries that claim to implement Shariah?

Shariah is extremely strict about ritual practices:
- Praying five times a day.
- Fasting in Ramadan.
- Paying Zakat.
But it is often silent or lenient on issues of moral integrity:
- Lying, hypocrisy, corruption, and abuse of power are widespread even among those who strictly follow Shariah rituals.
If Shariah is a divine system meant to transform human character, why does it emphasize ritual purity over moral integrity?

Conclusion: The Myth of a Divine Legal System

Shariah is presented as a perfect and divine system, but in reality, it is a human-constructed legal framework with inherent contradictions, ethical problems, and a long history of failure.
It is not a solution to humanity’s problems, but rather a source of conflict, oppression, and injustice in Muslim-majority countries.
The constant defense of Shariah as "perfect but misunderstood" is a classic case of special pleading — always blaming external factors (humans, culture, colonialism) instead of admitting the flaws within the system itself.