The relationship of Islamic Sharia with the prior legal systems

Abstract

In explaining the relationship between divine laws, the presumption of variance and equality of nullity, and the existence of common and distinct rulings, it is a fixed assumption that in its interpretation, common rulings exist due to the unified legislator (Sharia) and the differences are not due to the plurality of divine laws or abrogation of laws. Rather, the reality is that Sharia is a unified truth, and the evolutionary process of legislating rulings has led to certain differences within it. One might question what the commonalities of Islam with past divine laws are and why prophethood concluded with the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? It seems that in all divine and Abrahamic religions, there is a section known as legislation or practical rulings, or in Islamic terminology, it is called jurisprudence (Fiqh). In this research, a library research method is employed. Essentially, there is no difference in the essence of religious laws; all religions invite humans to the worship of the One God and negate polytheism. They encourage people to engage in favorable actions while refraining from unfavorable deeds and thoughts. Any differences observed are due to the capacity of humans in each era. For example, all humans need food to survive, but for an infant, the only suitable food is milk, whereas for a twenty-year-old, other foods are appropriate. Similarly, in religions, the ruling is in a similar manner. In Judaism, there is a book of laws and rulings, and Jewish law is quite extensive. In Christianity, the law does not exist in the sense that it does in Judaism or Islam because Paul removed the law from Christianity. They have modified their rulings and practices through the awareness of their ecclesiastical authorities, such as the Pope and the church hierarchy.