Understanding Islam through Sharia law – By Peter Burrows 9/22/2026
If you want to understand Islam without spending very much time on the subject, simply read Chapter 9, the penultimate chronological chapter in the Koran and the most important chapter, by far. I explain why in my book of essays, “How to read the Koran (and understand Islam),” available on amazon.com.
If you want to study Islam in greater detail, the most time-efficient way is to study Sharia law. Sharia law is the scholarly consensus of the meaning of every unabrogated verse in the Koran, which means you don’t waste your time on canceled verses. Since verses in the Koran give Allah’s blessing to everything Muhammad said and did, Sharia incorporates the scholarly consensus on the meaning of Muhammad’s life and sayings as well. Lastly, Sharia law includes the rulings theologians have made concerning contemporary issues, e.g., watching television.
Scholarly consensus is the ultimate authority in Islam.
My book, noted above, has an essay, “So, you want to learn about Islam,” that goes into greater detail on the canonical texts supporting Sharia law, which, conservatively, can total as much as 45,000 pages. By contrast, the four schools of Sunni Sharia law are “only” about 4,500 pages, which can be further reduced by reading the text of just one school, any school. Since Sunnis represent about 85 percent of all Muslims, there is no need to look at any other set of Muslim laws, which are essentially the same, anyway.
As background, the four schools of Sunni Sharia law are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali, each named after their founding jurist, all of whom lived between 699 AD and 855 AD. English translations of their legal texts are available on Amazon. The one used herein is The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law” (hereafter, the RoT.), based on the teachings of Imam Shafi’i (767 AD – 820 AD).
The Introduction to the RoT, page vii, tells us that the four schools “are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions.” Furthermore, on page 38 we learn that where the schools differ, Muslims are free to pick which ruling to follow, although it is strongly advised to follow the more restrictive as opposed to the more lenient ruling. When a Muslim is allowed to choose between alternatives, you can be sure that the Sharia law in question involves something trivial.
Thus, only one sharia text is needed, not four, and in the introduction to the RoT, page vii, we learn that the RoT “represents one of the finest and most reliable SHORT works in Shafi’i jurisprudence …” (My emphasis). At 1115 pages with an additional 22 pages of introduction and 117 pages of index, some may not think it so “short.” Actually, it’s not quite that formidable since much of the RoT has accompanying Arabic text. Take that out and it’s “only” 900 pages or so of “Sacred Law.”
Furthermore, the RoT was also the choice when Google AI was asked which of the four schools had the best text. Edited for brevity: If you need an explicit, comprehensive practical handbook on sharia rulings, the absolute easiest and most practical option is Reliance of the Traveller. It is strictly organized by real-world topics (purification, prayer, marriage, trade, etc.) and (in addition to a helpful index) it has extensive appendices explaining contemporary legal terms, biographical notes, and modern applications, making it easy (for a layman) to use.
One of the first things the RoT does, on page 9, is inform us that its founder, Imam Shafi’i, “went to the greatest possible lengths in asserting that (laymen) engaging in scholastic theology is forbidden.” Forbidden. This self-serving conclusion is based on two things: what Muhammad declared: “Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah (the Koran) from his own opinion is in error” ( RoT pg. 751), and what Allah commanded in the Koran:
The proof of the legal authority of scholarly consensus is that just as Allah Most Glorious has ordered the believers, in the Koran, to obey Him and His messenger, so too He has ordered them to obey those of authority among them, saying: “O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you” (Koran Verse 4:59), such that when those of authority in legal expertise, the mujtahids, agree upon a ruling it is obligatory in the very words of the Koran to follow them and carry out their judgment.” (RoT pg. 24, emphasis in original.)
Finally, driving the point home again, on page 804 the RoT declares: “Never explain a verse of the Holy Koran by your own opinion, but check as to how it has been understood by scholars of Sacred Law and men of wisdom who came before you. If you comprehend something else by it and what you have understood contradicts the Sacred Law, forsake your wretched opinion and fling it against the wall.”
And if you don’t? Page 597 of the RoT declares it an apostasy “to deny In a verse of the Quran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it.” And the penalty for apostasy is death. (RoT page 109.)
Thus, armed with the RoT, a non-Muslim can fact-check most claims a Muslim makes about Islam. A notable exception would be when a Muslim quotes the Koran, in which case it is necessary to check the Koran to see if the Muslim quoted it correctly and in context with adjacent verses. Even then, the verse quoted may have been invalidated, abrogated, by a later verse, something the Muslim will not tell you.
Why, you ask, is all this necessary? Because Sharia law, Allah’s law, requires Muslims to lie to us, in one way or another, to hide the truth about Islam whenever that would cause the unbelievers to resist the spread of Islam. That means Muslims lie to us almost all the time. From page 745 of the RoT we learn that, while speaking the truth is appropriate when it achieves its purpose, lying is required when the truth is counterproductive:
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible — and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.(my emphasis)
As far as us infidels are concerned, the most important obligatory goal that Muslims have is to wage war against us until the entire world is either Islamic or ruled by Islam. Since this is, by far, the most important thing we should know about Islam, indeed, is the ONLY thing we need to know, this essay will only look at only that part of Sharia law. And remember, Sharia is considered to be SACRED law, superior to man-made laws such as our Constitution.
The war against infidels is called jihad, and page 599 of the RoT defines jihad as meaning, “to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” Islam is NOT “a religion of peace.”
The RoT supports this with three of Allah’s commands/verses from the Koran and two quotes from Muhammad, Allah’s Messenger, the most graphic being, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah — if they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me —.” My emphasis. Bear in mind, the Koran gives Muhammad’s commands equal authority with Allah’s: “He who obeys the Messenger thereby obeys Allah.” (Verse 4:80, Mawdudi translation.)
The other schools of Sunni sharia are essentially the same. From Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Jihad,” page 27, edited for brevity
Maliki jurist: Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities before having invited the enemy to embrace the religion of Allah. They can embrace the religion of Allah, or pay the poll tax, or have war declared against them. (My emphasis)
Note: Jihad is a precept, meaning a rule or law of “Divine institution.” Straight from Allah, infidel.
Hanbali jurist: Lawful warfare is essentially jihad, whose aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost. According to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who do not offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, old people, the blind, etc., they shall not be killed unless they fight with words such as propaganda or engage in acts such as spying or otherwise assisting the warfare. (My emphasis)
Note: “shall not be killed unless they fight with words.” That’s a death sentence for me.
Hanafi school: It is not lawful to make war against any people who have not been called to (join) the faith. The Prophet so instructed his commanders to call the infidels to the faith because they will perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property or making slaves of their children. If they refuse to either convert or pay a capitation tax (and be ruled by Muslims), it is incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance to make war upon them. My emphasis)
Note: “Making slaves of their children” would have been more historically accurate if it had been: “making slaves of their WOMEN and children.”
Lest there be any doubt, page 598 of the RoT declares it an apostasy either “to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” or “to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.”
Nowhere in the RoT could I find any non-violent definition of jihad. On page 599, Muhammad makes a distinction between “lesser” jihad and “greater” jihad, the lesser being violence against non-Muslims to establish Islam, and the greater being spiritual warfare against one’s internal demons. Some defenders of Islam claim that the greater jihad is the true Islam, but that’s nonsense. I doubt an infidel confronted by a saber-wielding Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar”will make the distinction.
Over the years, scholars from other schools of jurisprudence have added nonviolent behaviors to the definition of jihad, for example jihad of the tongue and the hand, i.e., speech and the written word. More recently, immigration in the way of Allah and “jihad of the womb,” i.e. outbreeding the infidels, are also forms of jihad. As you can see, jihad can be very long term and, in fact, has been going on for 1400 years.
If a Muslim tries to convince you that jihad means these nonviolent forms of jihad and not violent jihad, do not be fooled. They are complimentary, as the renowned scholar Sayyid Mawdudii makes abundantly clear in Vol. III of his 1990 tafsir, Tafhim al-Quran, page 225, when explaining uses of Islam’s mandatory alms, Zakat. (A tafsir is a Koranic exegesis by a Muslim religious scholar.) Edited for brevity:
Jihad is an all-embracing concept covering every kind of struggle to bring down ungodly systems of life, to uphold the word of God, and make the Islamic system of life prevail. This struggle may be supported by Zakat funds whether Islam is in its early stage of propagating its message and persuading people to embrace it or in its later stages when the struggle assumes a combative dimension. (My emphasis.)
The fact that Muslims are obligated to give alms, zakat, and one of the eight uses of zakat is “expenditure in the Way of Allah” (Verse 9:60 Mawdudi translation), which, as noted above, means Muslims financially support the overthrow of non-Islamic rule, should legally justify closing every mosque in America.
Furthermore, The RoT, page 272, tells us this designated use of zakat is for “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster, but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration.” (Slightly edited for brevity.)
Doesn’t that mean zakat is used to support terrorists? Does every mosque therefore become a potential sponsor of terrorism? I think so, and the evidence for that is overwhelming — but that’s for another article.
As I write this, we are marking the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. Six days after the attack, President Bush declared “Islam is peace.” In remembering that day, 25 years later, Bush said, “I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion.” Apparently, he was proud of what he said.
As is abundantly clear from Sharia law, these people were not subverting their religion, they were obeying their religion. Bush’s alarming ignorance is matched by that of his successors, presidents Obama and Biden. Trump’s a little better, but not much. His Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, was interviewed on Fox News as part of their 25th anniversary coverage, and not once did he mention Islam, Muslims, Sharia law, or the appalling spread of Islam in America AFTER 9/11.
Ironically, the DNI was formed in the wake of 9/11 to coordinate all the various intelligence gathering bureaucracies to, hopefully, prevent another 9/11. How can they do this if they haven’t defined the enemy, which is Islam? Since 9/11, the Muslim population in America has grown from an estimated 2 million to 5.5 million, over half of whom were not born here. The number of mosques has grown from about 1200 to about 2800.
One of our problems is that Islam enjoys the protection of the First Amendment because it is considered to be a religion, and nothing else. In fact, it is also a political movement promoting a theocratic ideology of government that is overtly hostile to Western standards, especially freedom of religion and speech. To give a such a subversive movement First Amendment protection is suicidal, yet that is what we are doing.
Furthermore, in one of the great and tragic ironies of our time, the American Civil Liberties Union has actively protected Muslims and their mosques for years.
The way to stop Muslims from their advance in America is to educate the American people about exactly what Islam is. This is a daunting task because the media seems firmly committed to protecting Muslims as a persecuted minority race, of all things; the Democratic party doesn’t have anyone who recognizes Islam as a threat, although ex-President Clinton and Senator Fetterman may be exceptions; and our educational system, especially at the college level, is woefully inadequate to teach anything, let alone the danger of Islam.
Finally, the most logical opponent of Islam, considering 1400 years of hostilities, should be the Catholic Church, but the last two Popes, Frances and now Leo, have actively defended Islam, making official Catholicism part of the problem, not the solution.
Paradoxically, our best defense against Muslim conquest is the Muslims themselves. Their belief that with Allah on their side they cannot lose, means they overplay their hand almost wherever they gain a foothold. Resistance to Islamic demands is beginning to build in Denmark, Sweden, Italy and even the UK. I expect the Muslims to react with violence which, unfortunately, is probably the wake-up call Europe needs.
Here in America, Muslims are starting to request prayer rooms in schools, public broadcasting of their calls to prayer, and special accommodations for their religious beliefs, eg halal foods and dress codes, and on and on. Whenever they meet resistance, they scream “islamophobia” and “racist.” This, and sizable Muslim populations in Minnesota and Michigan, are giving us real-time examples of the incompatibility of Islam and American society. The Muslim mayor of New York is doing his part, too.
I hope we can reverse the inroads Islam is making before things get violent, but that may no longer be possible. As long as Muslims can blame extremists, and as long as they have the support of the MSM and the Democrat party, they will be a lethal threat to non-Muslims. This threat, as I have attempted to show, is real, nonnegotiable and forever. All Muslims, by definition, believe this is Allah’s command. If they say otherwise, they are lying.
Footnote: The RoT has its faults. The translators deliberately omitted four sections dealing with slavery “because the issue is no longer current.”(Page 459) Given the recent ISIS conflict and resulting slave markets, some of which were openly conducted in Turkey, slavery was recently affirmed as a timeless fact of Islam. Since this might make some infidels resist the spread of Islam, especially black infidels, the RoT’s omission is tantamount to lying to us.
