Divine Law vs. Human Construct: The Unbridgeable Divide Between Sharia Law and Roman Law

Abstract

This paper examines the profound ideological divide between Sharia law and Roman law, exploring the irreconcilable differences between a divine law and a human construct. The historical context of Sharia's expansion highlights its integration into all aspects of life, transcending the rigidity of Roman law, which was secular and fragmented. The central problematic addresses whether a legal system rooted in divine authority could ever be shaped by a framework founded on human ingenuity and political pragmatism.

The research methodology is analytical, dissecting the foundational principles, sources, and legal classifications of both systems. The paper is structured into three sections: (1) the concept of rights, contrasting Sharia’s fusion of legal and spiritual duties with Roman law’s

secular approach; (2) the sources of law, comparing Sharia’s divine origins with Roman law’s reliance on custom and codification; and (3) the classification of legal rules, focusing on Sharia’s holistic integration of moral, legal, and spiritual obligations, as opposed to Roman law’s compartmentalization of public and private spheres.

Findings reveal that the foundational roots of these legal systems are inherently distinct, with Sharia emerging from divine will and Roman law from human production. The analysis dismantles any superficial claims of influence between the two, emphasizing that Sharia’s divine origin and comprehensive ethical framework set it apart as a visionary legal system, alien to Roman law’s human-centered pragmatism. This exploration reaffirms the originality and ethical depth of Sharia law, asserting its unbridgeable divide from Roman legal traditions.