Cornflower- Aha, I see, I accept what you are saying about the absence of codified laws not being a part of whether or not it is sharia. I suppose "no codified laws" is the umbrella under which I placed all of the issues I discussed afterward in my mind. To me, it all boils down to that! But you're right.
I, too, stopped studying long ago, so I couldn't get crazy with you about the schools of thought and the loopholes that they all provide, either. But, and perhaps this is my ignorance, to me I never considered that sharia law could be one that allowed judgement to go to a king (edited for wording, yikes), which KSA does do, or allow him to override a judge's decision, which KSA also does. Even the example you mentioned, where the ruling is binding after you select a judge, would not check out here, since King Abdullah can sweep in and change the ruling as he pleases.
Also, and this is what I've long been operating under, but, again, if there is some crazy loophole that makes this invalid, I'd love to know it: I've also believed that something cannot be sharia law but also in contradiction with the Quran, which, between condemning those ordered to be left alone, or by changing and altering (and sometimes making worse) explicitly stated prescribed punishments for explicitly stated crimes in the Quran, KSA has done like a champion.
I'm starting to understand what you mean, though, Cornflower. The more I talk about this, the more I'm getting that the interpretations of Sharia would not only be numerable but infinite enough that even these qualities of KSA that I thought disqualified them from being real sharia law might be somehow reasonably claimed by someone with a cunning argument. I guess therein lies the problem, huh?
Well, the khalifah or "ruler" can override a matter, because this is something that a ruler in an "Islamic state" has the right to do (veto). If you look at the "golden early age of Islam, during the first four khulafa, you will see that the khalifah used his shura to come to some sort of conclusion in all matters, but in the end the ruler could come in and say that whatever the shura had agreed upon, not only could he take the minority stance, but even introduce a third opinion only he shared. So this doesn't necessarily have to be "anti-shariah".
Also, just because a law is not directly derived from the Quran or sunnah, it doesn't need to contradict them. Even certain laws that are seemingly contradicting a specific ruling, it can still have a support in the mishmash of methodology depending on how the scholars have arrived at what is the 'illah and what is the rukn and so forth.
You also have the maqasid and the qawaid that are derived from Islamic sources and provide the jurists with principles to derive laws from. These can be used to derive laws and norms even though there is no specific text that could be used to say "look, here it says so and so". You have the maqsad or the qaidah, and then the scholar must use reason and whatever methodology he views fit depending on his school of thought, and in the end you end up with a lot of customs, traditions and rulings you see in KSA. And I just have to mention, even though it may be a bit out of context(?), the "general and universal principles"-argument that modernist and progressives often use, is not applicable. A maqsad and qaidah can never override a specific text, so they are secondary and subordinate to all other texts despite the progressives attempt to turn it around (intellectual dishonesty, folks)
I can give you an example, perhaps it isn't the best one, but I will just put it out there because this just illustrates how Islam is a major cause for honor culture to still be very much alive in Muslim societies. There are narrations from Mo how he from time to time "explained" himself to his companions in order for them not to think badly of him. I don't remember the narrations exactly, and I'm too lazy to go on google and search for them, but you may have heard how Mo for example was in the company of a woman and some of his companions saw them and Mo turned around and "explained" (even though no one asked) that they were mahram. So scholars have used these types of narrations to derive a principle that says basically that as a Muslim, we should and must care what others think of us to the extent that we are morally prohibited from doing or saying anything that would cause suspicion among other Muslims that I'm doing something wrong even though I am not in reality. This despite another narration that explicitly states that as Muslim, we should not have suspicion towards each other. They are not contradicting each other, the two principles should just be combined and practiced "together". So if a judge makes an assessment or rules in a case where he uses this principle of not causing suspicion, he is not going against the "shariah", he is just applying something that is part of Islamic code of conduct and morality.
This was actually one of the first thing we as students had to learn when taking class in aadaab, as good du'aat we were absolutely not allowed to cause suspicion among the laymen
Poll
Topic: Why is Islam the fastest growing religion.