Codification expresses the nation-state’s top-down will to power, unlike Shariʿa’s bottom-up structure

Evidence

Asad engages with the phenomenon of religious (Islamic) criticism of the state within the Middle East and rejects the thesis which suggests that the “ulema [religious leaders], being traditional, reject any change in the status quo, because refusal to change is the essence of tradition” (Asad, 1993:209). As Asad goes on to note, the ulema did not mobilize when a variety of fundamental changes were introduced - “new forms of transport, new modes of building and printing, electricity, new medicines and types of medical treatment” (Asad, 1993:210). — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3519 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Shariʿa subordinated secular institutions while the modern state subordinates religious ones; The Shariʿa subordinated all political power to itself, unlike the modern state — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 163; Colonial-modern states transmuted shari’a into codified private status law. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 1090 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Islamic religious leaders accepted modernization while challenging state power #complicates (0.72) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3519