Arguments Against Sharia Law

Understanding the basics and the foundation behind Sharia law is not such a difficult task. Accepting it as a reasonable alternative to democracy is a bit more of a stretch for those who have only experienced democratic systems of crime and punishment. Crimes against a religious book are nothing new to Christians and those of any faith. The laws in a modern society of a nation that observes Sharia law seems archaic. Even more difficult to accept are the punishments handed out in accordance with the prescribed hudud punishments that are ‘fixed’ punishments handed out and assigned depending on the crime committed. Sharia law has more in common with a tyrannical state like Nazi fascism in that the laws are unequivocally unbendable and if you are not part of the correct heritage or religion, you are marked as a lesser human. That notwithstanding, the punishments for breaking the laws of the Sharia are also resolute. Some might say excessive and inhumane. Human rights groups have cited numerous events that would be considered so. One example in Turkey, who is …show more content…
Not only are the punishments different, but the locations at which they are carried out are much harsher in countries like Saudi Arabia. The jails and detainment areas are not only barely able to sustain human life, the creature comforts are extremely limited, police are even more easily corruptible, and the law of God is above any human standard so committing a crime against God is punishable by any means. There are set or fixed punishments or penalties called hudud (O'Connell, 2010). Hadd (singular for hudud) punishment derive from a religious nature and are broken out and separated into five areas; unlawful intercourse (Zina), False Accusation or Unlawful Intercourse (Kadhf), drinking of wine (Shurb), theft (Sariq), and highway robbery (Qat’ al-Tariq) (Johnson & Vriens,