Kinda annoying that you guys feel so entitled to interrogate me, going through my posts line by line and extracting uncharitable interpretations, but when I turn that approach back at you, you guys clutch your pearls and act dumbfounded.
The disconnect between what you guys seem to think Shariah courts were for and what they were actually historically used for is just so wide that its hard to have a clear conversation about what the historical record actually tells us about Shariah. You guys are constantly complaining about death penalty for this or that but when you actually read scholarship that pours over Shariah court records you find that these courts were mostly used for arbitrating marriage, divorce, and inheritance as well as being used to manage charitable endowments with, as far as I have read, virtually no record of any consistent application of
Hudud punishments. I have read more specifically about the Eastern Mediterranean in the early modern period and I can't say I have ever read of
Hudud being applied in that time period by some official Shariah court. Here's a clip from the wiki article on
Hudud
Its most likely the case that more people have been subjected to
Hudud since 1979 than in the entire period beforehand. So maybe ask yourself why there is virtually no record of a consistent
Hudud regime in premodern times but after the onset of modernity in the Islamic world and the adoption of the Western nation-state model and all the institutions and social practices that come with we somehow see
Hudud come out of nowhere.
Why do you think that is?