The claim that shariah is a basis for law is contestable even in the terms in which this claim is made by Islamists and other Muslims. The only parts of the Islamic traditional texts that can be considered sacred are the Quran itself, which is said to be the word of God, and the Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad as subsequently codified. In the Quran, of the 6,000 verses only around 80 are concerned with legal matters and most of these concern marriage, inheritance and punishment.

The term shariah, literally 'path' or 'way', did not initially denote a legal code at all. The interpretation of this 'divinely sanctioned' material is known as 'fiq' (literally 'understanding', hence jurisprudence) and it is this humanly evolved and variously codified body of legal material that has come to prevail under the misapplied term shariah..

Islamic law is not a code. This is why the frequently heard call for its 'application' is meaningless. Shariah does not designate law, but is a general term designating 'good order', much like nomos or dharma . Calls for the 'application of Islamic law' have no connection with the Muslim legal tradition built upon multivocality, technical competence and the existence of an executive political authority which controls the legal system. It is a political slogan, not a return to a past reality.

Behind claims to transhistorical and 'divinely sanctioned' legitimacy lie projects for the acquisition and maintenance of political power. These may vary between tribal oligarchies (Saudi Arabia), military regimes (Pakistan) and clerical dictatorships (Iran), but the mechanisms and goals of all these projects are eminently comprehensible in secular terms and comparable to those of other contemporary political systems.

Projects which are calculated and instrumental initiatives by regimes to consolidate their own power, both by silencing critics and social groups targeted by these laws, and by mobilising support from sections of the population who may be sympathetic to such changes.