Cases involving Ayah Pin followers, the recent amendments to the Islamic Family Law and the M Moorthy case have exposed flaws in the Malaysian judicial and legislative systems that have resulted in grave injustices. These events have led some to ponder on the possibilities of reinterpreting syariah law to suit modern times.

While today's civil laws were initially derived from morals based on faith, these laws have been allowed to evolve. Today they are guided more by empirical evidence and an innate (some might say God-given) sense of justice. The same cannot be said to be true of syariah law today.

In the past, syariah, too, was allowed to evolve along similar lines. Ijtihad involves interpretation of the Hadith and Quran and was a method that jurists turned to when formulating solutions to previously un-encountered situations. Popular in the early days of Islam, the practice of ijtihad virtually ceased in the 10th century. The fact that major interpretation of Islamic sources of law has been actively discouraged and avoided since medieval times explains why judgments and punishments meted out today by syariah courts around the world are of a medieval nature.

Despite the obvious need, there are many who would deny the need for new interpretation. The oft-repeated justification by ignoramuses is that syariah law is "God's law" and is thus immutable; instead it is society that must adapt to "God's law". While this statement is factually incorrect given that syariah law is itself diverse and comprises a collection of human interpretations of supposedly divine and non-divine sources, how can it be possible that God's intention is for us to adhere strictly to the interpretations of scholars who lived 1,000 years ago?

Particularly when these same scholars readily admitted to their fallibility. By preventing syariah law from evolving, human societies are themselves prevented from evolving and flourishing, thereby defying God's natural order. Allow me to explain.

To believe that God is omniscient (all knowing) is to believe that God knowingly created a dynamic world. The Ice Age and extinction of the dinosaurs is proof that even in the absence of human civilisation, this world is in a constant state of flux. God also wisely created a world of finite resources. Human societies must compete against each other for these resources and to flourish, a society must be able to nimbly adapt to its surroundings and competitors. Hence, in order to remain relevant and prepare societies to meet the challenges of an evolving world, man- made laws too, irrespective of the sources of inspiration, must be subject to evolution.

To insist that the customs, practices and interpreted laws of medieval Arabia are to be blindly adhered to is therefore to prevent the evolution of human societies as encouraged by the Quran. Surely, this is defying God's will and God's natural order of change?

The Quran does not command blind obedience as an examination of the text will reveal numerous verses that encourage critical thought. As an example, in ending with the phrase "We explain the signs in detail for those who reflect", Verse 10:24 of the Quran exhorts Muslims to apply logic and reason to respond to this ever-changing world.

Contrast this with the situation in Malaysia today where the Syariah Offence Enactment (Selangor) Act 1995 criminalises the act of defying, disobeying or disputing a fatwa. Those found guilty are liable for a fine of up to RM3,000 or sent to jail for up to two years.

While by definition syariah law must be anchored to the basic tenets of the Quran it should, as in the distant past, be subjected to rational debate and empirical evidence in order to propel human civilisation forward instead of suspending it in stasis, as is the case today.