"One word must not be added or deleted," - Qur’an. The Sinners Mindset that sinfully says that Islam is flexible like Plasticine or rubber, bending with posits of a contemporary reality is obfuscating, a closet enemy of Islam thus Allah ?

 In Islam, a central tenet upheld by many scholars and practitioners is the immutable nature of the Qur’an. "One word must not be added or deleted," is a phrase commonly heard among Muslims, referring to the belief that the Qur’an, as the literal word of God, must remain unchanged throughout history. 

This perspective emphasizes a rigid adherence to the text, suggesting that the Qur’an holds an eternal, infallible truth, untouched by human interpretation or modification. However, this presents a paradox when juxtaposed with the assertion that Islamic legal briefs claim to have evolved significantly over the centuries, adapting traditional principles to align with modern judicial frameworks.

The suggestion that Islamic law is flexible and capable of accommodating contemporary challenges is often cited by reformists and scholars. They argue that, despite the Qur’an’s sacred permanence, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) has adapted over time to address changing societal contexts. 

This evolving nature of Islamic law, particularly within the framework of Sharia, has resulted in a variety of legal interpretations that blend classical rulings with modern realities. 

Countries with majority Muslim populations, from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia, have implemented Sharia in varying degrees, with some emphasizing its role in personal matters, such as family law, while others incorporate it more broadly into state governance.

However, the tension between these two views—the preservation of the Qur’an as an unalterable text and the adaptability of Islamic law—becomes particularly pronounced in certain regions. 

For example, in northern Nigeria, particularly in Kano, the application of Sharia has led to controversial practices that raise serious ethical and human rights concerns. 

One of the most glaring examples is the continued use of corporal punishments, such as mutilations, stoning, and flogging, under the guise of Sharia law. 

These practices, often justified by conservative interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith, starkly contrast with modern global standards of human rights and justice.

While these practices are defended by some on the grounds that they are rooted in Islamic tradition, the disconnect with contemporary human rights principles is undeniable. 

The argument for "evolution" in Islamic legal systems rings hollow in such contexts, especially when acts that are seen as barbaric by the international community are still being carried out under the banner of Sharia. 

This is particularly frustrating to many who see the use of such extreme measures as not only unjust but also as an outdated, illogical imposition on the lives of individuals who may not necessarily agree with the interpretation of Islam that informs these practices.

Critics argue that the selective application of Sharia law—upholding the supposed sanctity of the Qur’an while simultaneously applying outdated and brutal forms of punishment—creates a contradiction that many Muslims may not fully recognize or choose to overlook. 

The idea that the Qur’an is beyond change or reinterpretation is often used to justify an adherence to practices that many would view as oppressive over centuries.

Moreover, for many outside of the Muslim world, particularly in the West, these practices can be seen as not only troubling but as frauds of the ideological nature surrounding the "evolution" of Islamic legal systems. 

The argument for modernity in legal systems cannot be taken seriously when such harsh and medieval punishments are being carried out in the name of religion. 

The selective application of "evolving" legal systems within Islamic countries, particularly in regions such as northern Nigeria, create a perception that these reforms are more about maintaining control and power through religious dogma than about true justice or progress.

It is important to note that not all  scholars, agree with the harsh practices employed in some countries. There are numerous voices within the Muslim world calling for a more compassionate, contemporary approach to interpreting the Qur’an and Islamic law, ones that take into account modern understandings of justice, human rights, and equality. These voices, however, often struggle to be heard over the louder, more conservative factions that resist change in favor of maintaining what they perceive as the "purity" of Islamic law.

The question then becomes: Do Muslims in these regions, or the defenders of Sharia law in these areas, realize how the blatant contradiction affects their reputation on the world stage? 

The sharp contrast between the immutable Qur’an and the evolving interpretations of Islamic law leaves many questioning whether true evolution is possible or whether this claim is a façade masking deeply entrenched patriarchal and authoritarian practices. 

The continued application of extreme measures, despite advancements in global human rights, risks creating resentment and alienation, not just from non-Muslims, but from within the Muslim world itself.

The tension between tradition and modernity in Islam, particularly in the implementation of Sharia law, reveals a complex and often contradictory relationship. While the Qur’an is revered as the eternal word of God, the application of its teachings, especially in the realm of legal punishment, must be scrutinized in light of modern ethical standards. The challenge lies in reconciling these two conflicting forces—the desire to preserve the sacredness of the Qur’an with the necessity of adapting legal systems to fit contemporary human rights and social justice frameworks. 

Until this contradiction is fully addressed, the claim of Islamic legal evolution may continue to be seen by many as more of a rhetorical device than a genuine posit of progress.