Laws are indeed often crafted with the aim of safeguarding individual rights and societal order, but human processes introduce imperfections at every stage. Below, I’ll outline examples of flaws or deficiencies in the making of laws, their interpretation, and their implementation, drawing from real-world cases across various jurisdictions.

Timeline of laws making :

Q:Can you share the timeline of organized law making in human history , its need of amendments over time again and again..which countries are able to maintain their original laws?

Timeline of Organized Law-Making in Human History

Organized law-making, or the codification of rules to govern societies, dates back to ancient civilizations where rulers sought to establish order, justice, and authority. This timeline highlights key milestones, drawing from historical records of early codes, constitutions, and legal systems. These developments often arose from the need to resolve disputes, consolidate power, or adapt to societal changes. Note that early “laws” were often oral before being inscribed, and many evolved through amendments or replacements.

• c. 2350 BCE: Urukagina’s Code (Sumeria) – One of the earliest known consolidations of ordinances by King Urukagina of Lagash, emphasizing reforms against corruption and protection for the weak. It set a precedent for rulers claiming divine appointment to justify laws. 2 3
• c. 2100–2050 BCE: Code of Ur-Nammu (Sumeria) – The oldest extant written code, discovered in fragments, focusing on compensation for harms rather than retaliation. It introduced concepts like fines for crimes and royal oversight of justice. 0 2 3
• c. 1772 BCE: Code of Hammurabi (Babylonia) – Inscribed on a stone stele by King Hammurabi, this comprehensive code covered 282 laws on trade, family, labor, and punishment (e.g., “an eye for an eye”). It was publicly displayed to ensure accessibility and reflected class-based justice. 0 2 3 6 7
• c. 1300 BCE: The Ten Commandments (Ancient Israel) – According to biblical accounts, these divine laws given to Moses emphasized moral and ethical conduct, influencing later Judeo-Christian legal traditions. 2 10
• c. 621 BCE: Draco’s Laws (Ancient Greece) – Athens’ first written code, known for harsh penalties (draconian), aimed at reducing arbitrary rulings by aristocrats. 2 3
• c. 550 BCE: Solon’s Laws (Ancient Greece) – Reforms in Athens to alleviate debt slavery and promote democracy, distinguishing between divine, human, and customary law. 0 2
• c. 450 BCE: The Twelve Tables (Ancient Rome) – Rome’s foundational legal code, publicly displayed to ensure equality before the law, covering civil and criminal matters. 1 2 3 7
• c. 1222–1236 CE: Kouroukan Fouga (Mali Empire) – An oral constitution proclaimed by Sundiata Keita, emphasizing human rights and governance, later transcribed. 0
• 529 CE: Justinian’s Code (Byzantine Empire) – Emperor Justinian consolidated Roman laws into the Corpus Juris Civilis, reducing legal texts dramatically and influencing European civil law. 0 1 2 7
• 604 CE: Seventeen-Article Constitution (Japan) – Prince Shōtoku’s moral code blending Buddhism and Confucianism, promoting centralized rule. 2
• 653 CE: T’ang Code (China) – A comprehensive penal code under the Tang Dynasty, influencing East Asian legal systems. 2
• c. 1100 CE: First Law School (Bologna, Italy) – Establishment of systematic legal education, reviving Roman law studies. 1 2
• 1215 CE: Magna Carta (England) – Limited royal power, establishing habeas corpus and due process, foundational for constitutionalism. 2 5 10 13
• 1234 CE: Decretals of Gregory IX (Papal States) – Codified canon law, part of the Corpus Juris Canonici. 1
• 1680 CE: Recopilación de Leyes (Spanish Empire) – Compiled laws for colonies in the Americas and Philippines. 1
• 1689 CE: English Bill of Rights – Affirmed parliamentary supremacy and individual rights. 2 10
• 1787–1789 CE: U.S. Constitution – Ratified with a Bill of Rights in 1791, introducing federalism and separation of powers. 2 5 13 14
• 1791 CE: Polish Constitution of May 3 – Europe’s first modern constitution, though short-lived. 26 37
• 1804 CE: Napoleonic Code (France) – Unified civil law, influencing global legal systems. 1 2 4

This timeline shows a progression from divine or royal edicts to democratic frameworks, with law-making becoming more systematic through codification and education.

The Need for Repeated Amendments Over Time

Laws and constitutions are living documents, designed with good intentions but requiring updates due to evolving societies. Amendments prevent obsolescence and ensure relevance, but the process is deliberately rigorous to promote stability. 15 17 19 22 Key reasons include:

• Societal and Technological Changes: Demographics, economics, technology (e.g., digital privacy), and values shift, necessitating adjustments to address new realities like climate change or AI. 15 16 18
• Correcting Inadequacies or Oversights: Original texts may have flaws, ambiguities, or exclusions (e.g., expanding voting rights to women or minorities). 15 17 19
• Responding to Crises or Political Shifts: Wars, economic depressions, or social movements (e.g., civil rights eras) demand reforms to maintain legitimacy and consent of the governed. 16 21 22
• Enhancing Rights and Institutions: To strengthen democracy, protect minorities, or adapt to polarization, amendments align laws with current consensus. 15 19 23

Without amendments, constitutions risk becoming irrelevant, leading to instability or extraconstitutional changes (e.g., via judicial interpretation). 19 21 22 However, rigid amendment processes (e.g., requiring supermajorities) balance flexibility with endurance. 17 22 23

Countries Able to Maintain Their Original Laws

Few countries have preserved their “original laws” entirely unchanged, as most constitutions evolve through amendments. However, some have maintained foundational documents with minimal or no major alterations, often due to stable governance, small size, or uncodified nature. “Original laws” here refers to core constitutional frameworks still in force. 25 26 27 35

• San Marino (1600): The world’s oldest surviving constitution, comprising six Latin books (Statutes of 1600) with a 1974 Declaration of Rights supplement. It has seen few changes, relying on tradition in this microstate. 25 26 31 32 33 35 36
• United Kingdom (Uncodified, from 1215 Magna Carta): No single document, but a collection of statutes, conventions, and common law evolving organically with minimal “major changes” to core principles like parliamentary sovereignty. 25 28 29 37
• Norway (1814): One of the oldest codified constitutions, amended over 300 times but retaining its original structure as a parliamentary monarchy. 25 26 31 33 36
• Denmark (1849, revised 1953): Based on the 1849 original, with the 1953 version incorporating minor updates but preserving the framework. 25 31 33 36

These examples illustrate that small, stable nations or uncodified systems better preserve originals, while larger ones amend frequently for adaptability. 27 35 37

Xxxxxxxxxxx

Q: Can you share the amendments done in shariah laws since 1400 yrs compared to non shariah laws?

Amendments and Evolution in Shariah Laws Over 1400 Years Compared to Non-Shariah Laws

The query involves comparing “amendments” in Shariah (Islamic law) over approximately 1400 years (since the advent of Islam around 610 CE) to those in non-Shariah (secular or civil) legal systems. It’s important to clarify that Shariah, derived from divine sources like the Quran and Sunnah (Prophet Muhammad’s teachings), is considered immutable in its core principles by most Muslims. What evolves is fiqh (human jurisprudence and interpretations), not the Shariah itself. Thus, there are no “amendments” in the legislative sense; instead, changes occur through scholarly reinterpretation (ijtihad), consensus (ijma), and adaptation to contexts. In contrast, non-Shariah laws, often based on human-made constitutions and statutes, are explicitly designed for frequent amendments to reflect societal, technological, and political shifts.

Below, I’ll outline the evolution of Shariah interpretations, provide examples of modern reforms, and compare this to the amendment processes in secular systems.

Evolution and “Amendments” in Shariah Laws

Shariah’s foundational texts (Quran and authentic Hadith) have remained unchanged since the 7th century. However, its application has adapted through human efforts, leading to diverse schools of thought and reforms. This process is not formalized like secular amendments but occurs via ijtihad (reasoning) and tafsir (exegesis), often in response to historical, social, or political needs. 35 37 38

• Formative Period (7th-9th Century CE): Shariah began as divine revelation to Prophet Muhammad (610-632 CE). Early interpretations focused on practical application in Medina’s community. After his death, companions and successors expanded rules via ijma and qiyas (analogy). Key developments included the compilation of Hadith collections (e.g., Sahih Bukhari in 846 CE) to standardize Sunnah. 30 33 42
• Classical Period (9th-10th Century CE): Four major Sunni schools (madhahib) emerged: Hanafi (emphasizing reason), Maliki (custom), Shafi’i (systematic methodology), and Hanbali (literalism). Shia schools (e.g., Ja’fari) developed separately. This era saw elaboration of legal doctrines, but by the 10th century, taqlid (adherence to established rulings) dominated, limiting new ijtihad for centuries. 33 38 42
• Medieval to Ottoman Period (10th-19th Century CE): Interpretations remained largely static under taqlid, but rulers issued administrative regulations (siyasa) to adapt Shariah to governance needs, e.g., Ottoman Tanzimat reforms (1839-1876) codified aspects of Shariah with European influences, creating the Majalla (1876), a civil code blending Islamic and secular elements. 30 38 40
• Modern Reforms (20th-21st Century): Colonialism and independence led to codification and selective reforms, often using takhayyur (choosing from multiple schools) or shifting from fixed hudud (severe punishments) to flexible ta’zir (discretionary). Reforms focus on family law (ahwal shakhsiyya), as Shariah’s role in criminal and commercial law diminished in most countries. 15 18 25 Examples include:
• Tunisia (1956): Personal Status Code banned polygamy, raised marriage age to 17, and expanded women’s divorce rights, drawing from Maliki and Hanafi schools. 15 16
• Morocco (2004 Mudawwana): Restricted polygamy (requires judicial approval), equalized divorce grounds, raised marriage age to 18, and improved inheritance for women via ijtihad and maslaha (public interest). 16 21 23
• Iran (1967, revised post-1979): Pre-revolution reforms limited polygamy and child marriage; post-revolution, some reversals occurred, but recent changes (e.g., 2013 family law amendments) enhanced women’s custody rights. 15 26
• Egypt (1920s-2000s): Gradual reforms via legislation; e.g., 2000 law introduced khul divorce (wife-initiated without husband’s consent), and 2021 draft aims to further equalize inheritance. 15 20
• Pakistan and Indonesia: Hybrid systems; e.g., Pakistan’s 1961 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance restricted polygamy, while Indonesia’s 1974 Marriage Law raised marriage age and required registration. 3 19

These reforms are infrequent and often controversial, driven by women’s rights movements, international pressure, and scholarly revival of ijtihad. Strict Shariah states like Saudi Arabia (pre-2010s) resisted, but recent changes (e.g., 2018 driving ban lift, 2022 personal status law reforms) reflect pragmatic adaptations. 17 25

Amendments in Non-Shariah (Secular) Laws

Secular legal systems, rooted in human legislation, are inherently amendable through parliamentary processes, referendums, or judicial review. Amendments are frequent to address inequalities, crises, or advancements (e.g., technology, human rights). 0 1 45 Frequency varies by country, but many constitutions have been amended dozens or hundreds of times.

• United States (1787 Constitution): 27 amendments over 237 years, including expansions of voting rights (e.g., 15th, 19th, 26th Amendments) and civil liberties (Bill of Rights, 1791). Average: ~1 every 9 years. 47 52
• India (1950 Constitution): Over 100 amendments in 76 years, addressing federalism, rights (e.g., 1971-1976 Emergency amendments), and social justice (e.g., 2019 citizenship changes). High frequency due to diverse society. 45 52
• France (1958 Fifth Republic): 24 amendments in 68 years, including EU integration (1992) and gender parity (2008). 52
• Norway (1814 Constitution): Over 300 amendments, maintaining core structure but adapting to modernity (e.g., human rights updates in 2014). 52
• Hybrid Systems (e.g., Secular with Shariah Elements): In countries like Egypt or Malaysia, secular constitutions are amended frequently (Egypt: 7 major revisions since 1971), while Shariah-influenced family laws change more slowly. 2 3 45

Global average: Constitutions last ~19 years before major overhaul; amendments occur every few years in active democracies. 52 53

Key Comparison

• Frequency and Mechanism: Shariah evolves sporadically through scholarly or state-driven reinterpretation, not routine amendments. Changes are rare (e.g., major reforms every few decades in modern times) and often limited to personal status laws, preserving divine immutability. 30 37 45 Secular laws amend frequently (e.g., 1-5 per decade in many countries) via explicit legislative processes, allowing rapid adaptation. 1 2 52
• Drivers: Shariah changes stem from maslaha (public welfare) or contextual ijtihad, often resisting secular influences. 21 37 Secular amendments respond to elections, crises, or rights movements. 0 45
• Scope: Shariah reforms are narrower (e.g., family law), while secular systems amend broadly (e.g., economic, criminal, constitutional rights). 15 18 25
• Challenges: Shariah’s perceived rigidity can lead to tensions in secular states, but hybrid models (e.g., in Indonesia) show coexistence. 3 8 45 Secular systems’ flexibility enables progress but risks instability.

This comparison highlights Shariah’s emphasis on eternal principles versus secular law’s adaptability, though both aim for justice in changing worlds.

Flaws in Making Laws

Legislation can suffer from hasty drafting, ambiguous language, or external pressures that undermine its effectiveness.

• Rushed or poorly analyzed drafting: Lawmakers sometimes enact bills quickly in response to crises, leading to gaps, contradictions, or unintended consequences. For instance, digital privacy laws in many countries have been criticized for failing to adapt to rapid technological changes, resulting in either overly broad surveillance powers for authorities or loopholes that expose individuals to data breaches. 0 Similarly, the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 has been faulted for inherent design flaws stemming from its expedited passage, which limited thorough review and led to foreseeable implementation challenges. 12
• Vague wording and lack of foresight: Ambiguous terms in statutes invite exploitation or misapplication. Free speech protections in constitutions worldwide are intended to promote expression, but vague phrasing allows for selective restrictions, such as limiting certain forms of protest while permitting others. 0 In Hungary, the legislative process has been manipulated as part of an “illiberal toolkit,” where procedural shortcuts infringe on rule-of-law principles, enabling laws that consolidate power undemocratically. 10
• Influence of special interests or undemocratic elements: Lobbying can skew laws away from public good. Outdated frameworks, like those governing algorithmic decision-making in government, often embed biases because they prioritize efficiency over equity, legitimizing tools that perpetuate discrimination without adequate safeguards. 8

Flaws in Interpretation

Even well-intended laws can be twisted through judicial or administrative readings that deviate from original aims.

• Rigid or outdated interpretive rules: Traditional methods like the “literal rule” (interpreting words strictly) or “golden rule” (avoiding absurd outcomes) remain optional for judges, leading to inconsistent results. These approaches can ignore legislative intent, allowing judges to override clear statutory language by claiming parliamentary aims were different. 2 In divorce appeals, errors of law occur when judges misapply standards, such as overlooking evidence in child custody cases under the “best interests” framework, resulting in flawed judgments. 4
• Subjective judicial discretion: Constitutional interpretations often vary based on ideology. The U.S. Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive punishment has been narrowly construed by courts to exclude prison conditions or collateral consequences (like lifelong restrictions post-conviction), labeling them as non-punitive despite their severity, which enables overly harsh sentences. 6 Emerging reliance on AI for determining “ordinary meaning” in legal texts introduces bias, as models reflect creators’ choices rather than neutral human consensus, potentially manipulating outcomes. 14
• Errors in classifying legal flaws: Administrative decisions can be invalidated for “errors of law,” but courts sometimes treat them as void only if severe, creating uncertainty. In the UK, cases like Anisminic have blurred lines between errors that nullify actions entirely versus those that allow decisions to stand until challenged, complicating accountability. 5

Flaws in Implementation

Enforcement gaps, resource shortages, or systemic biases can render laws ineffective or unjust.

• Inadequate oversight mechanisms: Policies mandating human review of government algorithms often fail because people struggle to detect biases effectively, yet these rules are used to justify deploying flawed systems anyway, exacerbating issues like discriminatory outcomes in welfare or policing. 8
• Uneven enforcement and administrative errors: Laws may be applied inconsistently due to flaws in decision-making processes. In administrative law, errors at various stages—such as misinterpreting regulations—can make acts unlawful without immediate remedies, leading to wrongful detentions or denials of rights, as seen in UK immigration cases where procedural missteps result in false imprisonment claims. 5
• Structural undemocratic barriers: Constitutions with historical exclusions (e.g., based on race or gender) lead to implementations that favor entrenched interests. Unenumerated rights in the U.S. Constitution are interpreted through methodologies that ignore these democratic deficits, allowing judges to impose values from an exclusionary past rather than current societal consensus. 13

These examples highlight how good intentions can falter due to practical realities, emphasizing the need for ongoing reform in legal systems.

Cxxx

Can you share the names of countries who claim to adopt divine laws and failed in interpreting, implementing?

Countries Claiming to Adopt Divine Laws with Failures in Interpretation or Implementation

While many nations incorporate religious principles into their governance, true theocracies—where divine or religious laws (often interpreted as infallible) directly shape the state—are rare. The term “divine laws” typically refers to systems like Islamic Sharia, where religious authorities claim divine guidance. Below are examples of countries that explicitly base their legal systems on such laws, along with documented failures in interpretation (e.g., subjective or inconsistent application) and implementation (e.g., leading to repression, corruption, or societal collapse). These issues often stem from human elements overriding the claimed divine intent, resulting in human rights abuses, economic stagnation, and instability. Note that “failure” here is based on critiques from international observers, human rights groups, and academic analyses, which highlight deviations from equitable governance.

1. Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran)

• Claim to Divine Laws: Established after the 1979 Revolution, Iran’s constitution declares it an Islamic theocracy governed by Sharia law, with the Supreme Leader as God’s representative on Earth. The Guardian Council ensures all laws align with Islamic principles, interpreted through Shia jurisprudence. 20 28 33
• Failures: Interpretation has been criticized for being overly rigid and selective, allowing clerical elites to consolidate power while suppressing dissent as “un-Islamic.” Implementation failures include widespread corruption (e.g., economic mismanagement benefiting insiders), repression of women and minorities (e.g., mandatory hijab enforced by morality police leading to protests and deaths), and regional aggression, turning the regime into a “klepto-theocracy” that has caused economic devastation and isolation. 24 25 30 Critics argue this deviates from Sharia’s emphasis on justice, leading to a culture of fear rather than piety. 28

2. Afghanistan (Islamic Emirate under the Taliban)

• Claim to Divine Laws: The Taliban regime (1996–2001 and reinstated in 2021) claims to enforce a strict interpretation of Sunni Sharia as divine law, with religious scholars (ulema) holding ultimate authority. The government positions itself as unifying the nation under God’s edicts. 20 21 22
• Failures: Interpretation is highly literal and exclusionary, banning education for girls beyond primary levels, music, and modern amenities as “un-Islamic,” which critics say ignores broader Islamic principles of knowledge and compassion. 21 Implementation has led to state failure: economic collapse, famine, international isolation, and human rights atrocities (e.g., public executions for minor infractions). The regime’s focus on “purity” has exacerbated tribal divisions and poverty, making Afghanistan a failed state. 23 25 26

3. Saudi Arabia (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

• Claim to Divine Laws: As an absolute monarchy, Saudi Arabia declares the Quran and Sunnah as its constitution, enforcing Wahhabi interpretations of Sharia. Religious police (mutaween) ensure compliance, claiming divine mandate for societal order. 21 22 23
• Failures: Interpretation favors royal and clerical elites, allowing selective enforcement (e.g., apostasy punishable by death for converts, while elite corruption goes unchecked). 23 Implementation issues include systemic oppression of women (e.g., guardianship laws restricting autonomy until recent reforms) and religious minorities (no public non-Muslim worship), leading to human rights abuses and international criticism. Economic reliance on oil masks governance flaws, but critics label it a failed theocracy in terms of equity and freedom. 17 25 26

4. Sudan (Under Former Regime, 1989–2019)

• Claim to Divine Laws: During Omar al-Bashir’s rule, Sudan imposed Sharia as state law, claiming it as divine guidance for unity and morality in a multi-ethnic nation. 17 23
• Failures: Interpretation was politicized, using Sharia to justify atrocities in civil wars (e.g., Darfur genocide, where non-Muslims were targeted as “infidels”). Implementation led to economic ruin, corruption, and repression (e.g., public floggings for minor offenses), culminating in al-Bashir’s ouster in 2019 amid protests. The regime’s “theocratic kleptocracy” exacerbated divisions, turning Sudan into a failed state with ongoing instability. 17 25

5. Mauritania (Islamic Republic of Mauritania)

• Claim to Divine Laws: The constitution declares Islam the state religion and Sharia the basis of law, with religious scholars influencing governance. 20 21 22
• Failures: Interpretation enforces harsh penalties (e.g., death for apostasy, though rarely applied), but inconsistently, favoring elites. Implementation has perpetuated slavery (despite bans) and discrimination against non-Arabs, leading to human rights failures and slow democratization. Critics note it as a partial theocracy struggling with poverty and inequality. 23 26

These examples primarily draw from Islamic contexts, as modern theocracies are predominantly Sharia-based. 20 27 Non-Islamic cases, like the Vatican (a Christian theocracy), are often seen as successful due to scale, but historical Christian theocracies (e.g., medieval Papal States) faced similar issues of corruption and abuse. 19 35 Broader critiques argue theocracies inherently fail because human interpretation corrupts “divine” intent, leading to authoritarianism. 24 25 27

Notes:

France makes a law to ban hijab otherwise they will be facing penalties. No ifs or buts. No question of freedoms of practicing faith and its values as state decided it’s in the best interest of the state and population at large I believe ( don’t know if it’s right or wrong. One can’t be on both side of freedom loving and hating nation).
Likewise
If Iran or other Muslim countries adopt Islamic faith and its values as their laws and implement them on citizens as they consider it as in the best interest of their country and all citizens. Is it wrong ? Is it wrong if the
Laws are enforced otherwise penalties can be enforced. How different it is like in case of French burqa ban?
Can Muslim majority in Muslim country chose their way of life and gov make laws to implement on all citizens equally, does it become hard to swallow?

2.

Need to differentiate between
Adopting a faith and its values as a whole or part of it.
Adopting in personal lives
Adopting as a community, as a group as a country.
Certain laws made / adopted by a country are going to be implemented with some freedoms , exceptions ( commonly done as we observed).
Hypocrisies in adopting, interpretation and implementation leads to chaos.
Major principles are not compromised in following laws.
Covering area of body is clearly mentioned. Color of clothing is not mentioned. Principle of avoiding attractive garments, scented etc is mentioned. People who adopt general principles by heart would try their best to follow the spirit of the laws , won’t try to find excuses to break the laws at the earliest opportunity.