The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:19:21 -0500

Like a previous poster, I'm also concerned that this particular idea of mine *might* be "too controversial". My idea is, "How does a Christian family hold on to their faith when the US is taken over by radical Muslims?" Although I could never become a Muslim because I don't believe that Muhammed is the last and greatest prophet, and I don't believe the Koran usurps the Bible, I also understand that we have freedom of religion in this country, and as such, Muslims and Christians should have the right to freely practice their religion. My guess is that most Muslims in the US want to freely worship Allah without force-feeding it to those who do not wish to do so. I am concerned, however, about those who *do* wish to see the US taken over by Islamic law. I would want at least a couple of "sympathetic" Muslims who say something like, no, we didn't want this takeover. Over at the reference desk, I posted a few questions about life under Islam in the US--such as, how would women dress, how would the law treat women, what would the status of a non-Muslim be (I know of the term dhimmi, which is a "protected status" for non-Muslims.) This is a controversial plot, and I hope it will work.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Erica C — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:43:24 -0500

I think a good place to begin would just be researching exactly what sharia entails and what life is like in Islamic countries that use a Muslim legal system. Women's dress and status would vary wildly depending on the variety of sharia and Islam practiced by those "taking over" the United States, as you can see just by looking at life in various Muslim-majority nations and in the few countries which impose sharia on their citizens. I'd recommend just browsing around Wikipedia a little -- the pages for Saudi Arabia and Iranian Culture both have sections about women's rights and legal status in those countries, but it's super important to distinguish what is locally, culturally required and what is religiously required -- many things, including a lot of variations in women's dress, is culturally rather than religiously imposed, and might not apply in the same way in the US. I think you also might be interested to know that sharia is a term much like halakha (Jewish religious law that covers appropriate dress, kosher diet, etc in some Jewish communities) -- it's a "religious law" or code of conduct, not really a set of laws meant to impose Muslim standards of dress and behavior on non-Muslims. This would likely be the defense of the many Muslims opposing a sort of "federal sharia legal system" in the US -- the whole system is meant to be for believers only and followed out of love for Allah, not because of legal mandates. Just as the vast majority of Jewish people, even the most Orthodox, would see no sense in forcing gentiles to wear kippahs and eat kosher; the vast, vast majority of Muslim people in the US would see (and do see) little sense in requiring non-believers to follow sharia.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

NateDavis1798 — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:06:25 -0500

Read "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It" by Mark Steyn. It's a nonfiction look at more or less that same question, and one of my favorite books.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:38:49 -0500

"the vast, vast majority of Muslim people in the US would see (and do see) little sense in requiring non-believers to follow sharia." I believe that. I live within a mile of a mosque and about two miles from another . . . and I haven't heard of a problem from either of them.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:16:10 -0500

I think that's very close to an explanation I heard--that there are many Muslims who wish to use sharia as *their* personal code of conduct and not enforce it on anyone else. I hope I can also make it clear that while there are terrorists who want to kill Americans, and some of them are Muslim, not *all* Muslims are terrorists. In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of Muslims in the US wish to practice their religion freely, as the 1st Amendment gives them the right to do.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Rheinsberg — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:21:58 -0500

Take mixed countries like Lebanon - every religious group has their private law according to their laws - especially as to marriage laws etc. BTW, this also goes for Israel. Islamic Law would call for freedom for Christianity and Judaism, too - so you might find it difficult for your plot to imagine the problems your MCs would face. Proselyting would not be allowed - maybe that helps you. I think the main discussion points would be more things like production and consumption of non-halal-food or alcohol, as this might affect the muslim part of the population.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:25:43 -0500

I know there are some Islamic countries where it is against the law to proselytize the Christian faith. I'm thinking of working that into my story. Your comment about "consumption of non-Halal food" is interesting--I'm wondering if there would be some Christians that wouldn't eat Halal food as a protest. (Sort of like the argument of eating meat sacrificed to idols.)

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Rheinsberg — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:33:09 -0500

My idea behind the halal-question was different: lets say you have a shop owned by Christians - would he be allowed to sell non-halal-food, would he be allowed to employ muslim workers, if he does? In Germany, for example, a lot of shop owners are afraid to sell halal food because they fear to loose non-muslim customers. Muslims fight against being forced to take jobs where they would have to sell alcohol or pork. Maybe you can turn that one around....

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Cadaverine — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 01:39:51 -0500

I have seen issues where people refuse to eat Halal meat because they believe there are ethical issues regarding the method of killing.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

lurgee — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:58:05 -0500

It would depend on what you mean by " radical Muslims". I imagine ANY Islamic takeover of the USA would have to be by non-democratic means, so immediately you're in the sort of territory inhabited by the sort of fanatics determined wenough to impose their ideas on hundreds of millions of other people. So faith is actually secondary to that sort of megalomania. People like that would only be interested in control, and would interpret their faith in terms of what would further their control. So they would cleave to the Taliban model of control-through-terror. Inconvenient islamic dogma that didn't further this would be casually ignored - not for them the interpretation of "No compulsion in religion" favoured by Pakistan's supreme justice, SA Raham, as decree to protect and value all faiths. So, basically, you can imagine whatever you want - whatever people who desire control want to do, they will do, and justify in their own terms. Lenin and the revolutionairies of 1917 managed to justify everything they did in terms of the advancing the cause of the proletariat, while it was really about seizing and clinging onto power. The same in the USA just now, perhaps - a lot of talk about democracy and human rights, and a savage disregard for both the moment it becomes expediant. Why should we expect Islamists to be any better than the rest of us?

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 06:17:23 -0500

Good idea to consider. :-)

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 06:19:13 -0500

Let's be careful not to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush. I'm not crazy about terrorists--some who happen to be Muslim--but not all Muslims are terrorists. I'm planning to put in some sympathetic Muslims just to prove my point.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Rob(literated) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:15:53 -0500

Ugh, you're gonna run into believability issues with this. The Muslim population is such a minority here that any sort of shariah takeover (in the gun-happiest country on earth no less) would result in widespread rebellion and pogroms of Muslims. Which might actually be a better plot: how a failed coup by radical Muslims turns America into an intolerant Naziesque paranoia state where innocent people just practicing their religion are made to pay for the crimes of the fringe that represents them. Sadly, more believable. Anyway, the first place to start is to read the Quran! And use Wiki to look up information on Fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence. There are currently four different schools of Islamic law, which interpret scripture in different ways. And also some radical liberal movements (like Quran alone), and radical conservative movements (like Salafis). Start there.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

JoyceHeatherington — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:13:25 -0500

As much as I'm afraid of this happening too. Unless I knew about there religion also completely, it's not one I'd want to cover. But I do think it Wouk be a good novel to write from a believers point of view. Best wishes.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

nodgene — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:42:10 -0600

[quote=Rob(literated)] Ugh, you're gonna run into believability issues with this. The Muslim population is such a minority here that any sort of shariah takeover (in the gun-happiest country on earth no less) would result in widespread rebellion and pogroms of Muslims. Which might actually be a better plot: how a failed coup by radical Muslims turns America into an intolerant Naziesque paranoia state where innocent people just practicing their religion are made to pay for the crimes of the fringe that represents them. Sadly, more believable. Anyway, the first place to start is to read the Quran! And use Wiki to look up information on Fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence. There are currently four different schools of Islamic law, which interpret scripture in different ways. And also some radical liberal movements (like Quran alone), and radical conservative movements (like Salafis). Start there. [/quote] Yeah, major believability issues. And even then the only reason the right-ring would fight them would be because they were Muslims... not like they'd conflict on a lot of issues besides a dress code... Reminds me in part about a game where the USA was invaded by North Korea in the future. Like, come on, REALLY? North Korea? No. Impossible. Sharia law is common to almost all Muslims. However many have vastly different takes on it. What we often hear of as "Sharia law" from Muslim extremists is kind of like what we hear of "Christianity" from the Westbro Baptist church. Sure they claim to follow it in Saudi and places like that; but the problem is that they have to revise the Qur'an quite a bit. Books printed in Saudi Arabia about Islam often will have subtexts "explaining" specific passages which are taken out of any historic or theological context. The lone preacher who established the Wahhabi (Saudi Islam) worldview, something Al-Wahhab, lived in the 1700s. His take on things was rejected by his brother, father, imams, etc. His view was that Islam was at risk of becoming polytheist, and Shirk, or the concept of the oneness of God, was threatened. Even today most Muslims and scholars whose understanding is based on a "classical" Islamic teaching reject this as nonsense. The Wahhabis blew up Mohhamad's house and mosque, would you believe? Why? To stop pilgrims coming, and supposedly getting confused between Mohhamad and Allah. Which is pretty rediculous. More likely is that this bastardised version of the Islamic faith allowed those who did not follow it to be considered non-Muslims, and thus legally attacked (which is in itself not theologically supported very well). Al-Wahhab allied himself to the tribe of Saud, which over time became the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; ruled by the royal family, descendants of the tribe, and governed in "Islamic law" by those inspired by Al-Wahhab's ministry. The problem is that under the Islamic prophet's lifetime, "Sharia law" meant that non-Muslim minorities would be governed by their own court systems. Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc. Even the grand Ottoman empire, which dominated modern day turkey and much of the middle east and south eastern Europe was still quite tolerant of minorities. They employed many Jewish doctors in their army's medical corps, and of course Christians have for millenia lived side-by-side with Muslims in places like Egypt and Syria. The intolerance political dominance of Islam in places like Saudi Arabia is only a very modern thing. The best example is probably that the massive Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were only demolished by the Taliban in early 2000? Or so. They had stood peacefully for centuries, as the native Islamic belief was called "Sufi", which was a particularly introverted form of Islam. Only very recently did Wahhabi beliefs start to flood into the impoverished, illiterate region.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Rob(literated) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:53:06 -0600

Awesome, awesome post. Another note for the OP: while I'm not sure if it's a majority or not, many Muslims see Sharia law not as something that should be enforced by state power or governments, but rather as a personal code of conduct that should be taken up by the truly faithful. The interpretation is that state power robs the individual of their free will, so you can't tell if they're following the law faithfully or just because they fear state punishment. So while individuals may be very pro-shariah, that doesn't *always* mean they wish to use the police and the military to force it on anyone. And to be frank the Quran prohibits this (verse 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"). But of course, like in any religion, powerful people will add their own interpretations and commentary to turn black into white, night into day, and up into down if it suits their interests.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

nodgene — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:59:47 -0600

[quote=Rob(literated)] Awesome, awesome post. Another note for the OP: while I'm not sure if it's a majority or not, many Muslims see Sharia law not as something that should be enforced by state power or governments, but rather as a personal code of conduct that should be taken up by the truly faithful. The interpretation is that state power robs the individual of their free will, so you can't tell if they're following the law faithfully or just because they fear state punishment. So while individuals may be very pro-shariah, that doesn't *always* mean they wish to use the police and the military to force it on anyone. And to be frank the Quran prohibits this (verse 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"). But of course, like in any religion, powerful people will add their own interpretations and commentary to turn black into white, night into day, and up into down if it suits their interests. [/quote] Glad you liked! You also brings fair points. Mind you the believability thing got me thinking again... I had an idea for a apocalyptic USA, as a consequence of a hat-trick of international disasters... a major economic crash, followed quickly by a meteor strike in continental east Asia, which causes widespread crop failures and plummeting temperatures, and while we're at it we may as well send a meteor to the middle east to ruin the oil supply since we've ruined the cheap factory production.... never mind the massive death toll. Anyway, in this context, I see the likely sequence of events... Republican party actually has to put forward a very good candidate who rides off the party's old fear and lies horse shit, and is actually a very good character. Problem is that the aversion to any state ownership or welfare in a crisis exacerbates ethnic tensions, and so a new iteration of the KKK makes major political gains in the south. Meanwhile the Mormon church seizes the opportunity to gain supporters by offering welfare in exchange for membership, and overwrites federal oversight in their heartland. Over time the new power structure becomes a face off between essentially a Washington Republican government that's a puppet for the Klan, and a burgeoning and more socially minded, politically evangelised Mormon church in the west, reforming the glory-days Navoo Legion or whatever it was called. The Klan starts ethnic cleansing and brings the constitution and legal framework back a few centuries, so women, blacks, non-protestants and gays face grim prospects. I'd see the tea party getting liquidated by the Klan, as they would have no paramilitary strength, and under pressure they'd warp politically to become milder, and so ironically the Klan would say they were "liberal socialists" and get rid of them as a matter of course. Republicans would be similarly gutted and liquidated, but kept as the smiling face of things. So I can't really see Muslims featuring, they'd get liquidated like the non-white, non-protestants fairly early on, or perhaps make an alliance with the Mormon church to be a subservient minority.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

baka_kit — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:21:02 -0600

I can't imagine this EVER happening. Way too many people have guns. And since there's a fairly high overlap between people-with-guns and Islamophobes, the first hint of something like this would cause a massive conflagration. The new government couldn't count on the military backing them up, either; the oath everyone joining the military takes is to support and defend the constitution of the United States, and from all enemies foreign AND domestic. Going through boot camp, you get classes in lawful vs. unlawful orders. And taking military action to enforce theocratic laws created by an unelected government would fall pretty heavily into the "unlawful" end of things.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Kathy1612 — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:21:29 -0600

It is hard to imagine, but...look at what's happening in Europe. I am well aware that not all Muslims, in fact, only a small portion of them, want to enforce their views on others. But they exist, they are clever and devious, and they are making gains that are scary to think about. In our politically correct culture, they can find ways to manipulate without seeming to, and then pounce when they have you in the crosshairs. I don't want to go into specifics here, as it is not the appropriate forum. I just wanted to point out that while you might have a hard time imagining it, it could happen. As posted earlier, the Germans would never have imagined Hitler could happen. Kudos to the original poster, and best of luck on this incredibly complex topic. And yes, you probably will offend, but bringing offense often makes people stop and think, which is never a bad thing. Perhaps someone who is initially offended will read on and gain new faith through your words. That's the power of writing!

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Pookie-girl — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:42:23 -0600

History suggests that there would be no problem - much of Europe was under Muslim rule for centuries (the war to get rid of them is the war which put Katherine of Aragon's parents Philip and Isabella on the throne of a united Spain) and there were no forcible conversions, nor were people prevented from practising their faith. There were additional tax burdens for people who openly kept their own faith, and you could certainly argue for a class difference between the faiths, so conversion was welcome but not required. The Jews were certainly better off under Islam than the Christian based regimes which preceeded them and likewise Christian 'heretics' who were massacred during the crusades were just one more alternative from the perspective of the Caliphate. It is true that Muslims are forbidden to convert and this (apostasy) has been punishable by death in some Islamic regimes. And proselytisng is banned in many places - but to be honest many religions are concerned about the effects of proselytisation on their communities, and i should think many athiests would also eagerly support such a ban. There is no question that there are modern 'extreme' forms of Islam which might insist on outward conformity to modesty rules and the role of faith in political and judicial matters, but the 'no coercion in matters of faith' thing is in the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is regarded as the complete and uncorrupted word of God. Christianity and Judaism have the added benefit of being 'sister religions', even where other faiths are in trouble they are protected because Muslims recognise both that they worship the same God and that Jesus was a prophet of that God. Even the Islamic Republic of Iran offers constitutional protection to Jews, Muslims and Zoroastrians (although they do have a problem with Baha'is - probably because of the view that there have been prophets since Muhammad). Perhaps ironically some of the worst faith-based persecutions by Islamic regimes are perpetrated against other Muslims - Ahmadi or Ahmadiyya Muslims believe all the core articles of Islamic faith but are persecuted pretty much everywhere because they recognise another, later Prophet - in Pakistan for example they are legally banned from calling themselves Muslims and practice of their faith is restricted, while Christians (and others) are free to practice as long as they do not 'insult Islam'. In short while there is a minefield of blasphemy laws out there Islamic regimes do not routinely ban or persecute faiths simply for practising a different religion, unless that faith is claiming to be Muslim. Personally I would invent some kind of heretical version of Islam (like Ahmadiyya) which could have a Prophet who requires forced conversion, that way you could avoid accusations of representing the real Islam unfairly, and a lack of knowledge about the intricacies of Islam would not be a handicap because it isn't Islam...or is it? So you'd still get the thought-provoking aspects as well!

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Pookie-girl — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:44:14 -0600

In Germany, for example, a lot of shop owners are afraid to sell halal food because they fear to loose non-muslim customers. Muslims fight against being forced to take jobs where they would have to sell alcohol or pork. Maybe you can turn that one around.... [/quote] Conversely many supermarkets in the UK routinely stock halal meat on the basis that they can then sell it everyone (except Sikhs, but no-one seems to register that) without causing offence.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

allynwriter — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:59:24 -0600

This thread has generated a lot of good ideas and good discussion. Thanks to all!

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

nodgene — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:57:58 -0600

[quote=Kathy1612] It is hard to imagine, but...look at what's happening in Europe. I am well aware that not all Muslims, in fact, only a small portion of them, want to enforce their views on others. But they exist, they are clever and devious, and they are making gains that are scary to think about. In our politically correct culture, they can find ways to manipulate without seeming to, and then pounce when they have you in the crosshairs. I don't want to go into specifics here, as it is not the appropriate forum. I just wanted to point out that while you might have a hard time imagining it, it could happen. As posted earlier, the Germans would never have imagined Hitler could happen. Kudos to the original poster, and best of luck on this incredibly complex topic. And yes, you probably will offend, but bringing offense often makes people stop and think, which is never a bad thing. Perhaps someone who is initially offended will read on and gain new faith through your words. That's the power of writing! [/quote] What do you mean "look what's happening in Europe"? The population of Muslims is very low, and reports of their birth rate dooming the natives is largely just bigoted hysteria, with little appreciation for the facts of the matter. The vast majority of British Muslims, for instance, even veil-wearing ones, tend to identify strongly with being British. It's only a minority within a minority that is trouble making, and not even Muslim elders take them seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk#Religion 2.8% of Britains identify as Muslim. Most are probably not devout or especially more religious than those who identify with being Church of England, and even being devout does not guarantee they will be sympathetic to the frankly, unIslamic tendancies and beliefs of the sorts who would find it impossible to divide their political and religious beliefs. Even if they outbreed their peers, there's no guarantee that in a relatively free society like Britain, than most of their children would follow their parents. I'd imagine as many would rebel or become more moderate. This however is a great contrast to Germany. Anti-semitism had been strong since the times of the reformation, wherein Martin Luther tended to make a fair few spiteful remarks about Jews. And of course, even before that. There was a strong anti-Semitic tradition, and you've got to consider the relative popularity of the Nazi party amongst the mainstream and how many were sympathetic to their beliefs after the humiliation of losing the first world war. Nazism was not opposed to the status quo, it claimed it was DEFENDING it. Many times in speeches Hitler talked about his belief in a creator God. He also talked about how the Nazi party would never close down churches, and how Christianity and it's spirit would only be defended by them; and that liberalism, communism, capitalism, were all tools of the ultimately, as he saw it, parasitic Jewish race... in order to destroy and enfeeble the naturally superior Aryan peoples. So the Nazis used the native majority's unhappiness and traditional beliefs to their advantage. There's little a Muslim minority in America could do to tap into the same Zeitgeist of popular belief. They'd have to get the American right-wing on side, perhaps some joint "Christian"-"Muslim" theocracy; but both sides are far too bigoted to agree on such a thing.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

baka_kit — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:38:41 -0600

Those are some excellent points, especially about the existing anti-Semitism that Hitler used to get into power.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Knight_of_the_Light — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:51:11 -0600

Anyone else on this thread heard the speeches in Islamic countries in which the Islamic leaders say "Death to Isreal. Death to America." and then they proceed to burn the Jewish and US flag? Anyone else? or is that just me?

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

nodgene — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:01:30 -0600

It doesn't mean anything in itself. There are plenty of bigots of varying shades in every country across the world who want death to something or other. The media likes to show a disproportionate view of what most Muslims think because it's far more sensationalist, and panders to the ignorance, fear and bigotry of most viewers. But a minority huffing and puffing doesn't mean they'll blow the house down.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Knight_of_the_Light — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:28:54 -0600

That is very true. In the US, we have people rioting, demanding incredibly stupid things all the time. So you are right that we can't judge a whole people just by the actions of a few.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

beanza3 — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:38:37 -0600

I'd say, go with the some of the recommendations above. Especially with creating a new sect of the Islamic religion. It's less... biogoted to mention a sect, then to just shove it under the umbrella of the full religion. And... Germany partially went into the Nazi thing beacause of the terrible downfall that hit them after WW1... Maybe America would have similar problems: no money, weak, small army, ect. I mean, the billion of Americans against the Islamic minority? No contest. But if Americans started joining their side thinking it would be better, it'd be easier for them to get away with the begining. Especially if these allies were in the government... :D Good luck!

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Dragoncharmer — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:57:30 -0600

In every religion, there are radicals. You can't infer that everyone in the religion is like that just because of the few. As a sympathetic muslim, I am very much against the US taken over by radical Islamic law like many parts of other countries. There are certain sections of Egypt where harsh (Islamic by their controllers' terms) law is implemented. As it pains me to say, it is the truth and they can be quite cruel. What I'm glad to say is that is not how the Qur'an says it should be. It matters what manner of muslims are taking over the US. What do they stand for, what do they wish to accomplish? You can have them of the cruel nature or of the pacifist kind. But there are all kinds in each crowd, don't forget that. Another tip, mind your spelling, especially with different characters. Different ways they pronounce certain words can have a lot of hidden meaning. For example, in your first post, you spelled 'Koran.' I write it Qur'an and when referred to it can also have 'holy' in front of it. Muhammed to you is Muhammad to me (which is the correct spelling according to my spell checker). I'd be very happy to help you on this endeavor if you'd like additional assistance.

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Dragoncharmer — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:57:47 -0600

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

Dragoncharmer — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:58:08 -0600

Sorry about the double post...

Re: The US under Islamic law . . .

blank_sheet_of_paper13 — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:59 -0600

I think there probably would be a believability issue but if this is many years in the future I guess you could skip the explanations about how this exactly came to be. The thing about women's rights and a number of other issues would be determined entirely by what sect and how conservative the particular Muslims in charge were. For example, a very conservative faction might require women to wear a full face veil, whereas a more moderate one might only require the hair to be covered or they might not regulate the dress at all. Shariah law is, unfortunately, like communism in that it seems like a great idea on paper but historically it has never worked well. (Of course as a Muslim myself I say this with the greatest possible respect.) So, there are two directions you could go in here-- you could go with the very very extreme Taliban-esque style of Islamic law (which is the furthest thing from true Shariah), or you could go with something a little closer to how Shariah is supposed to work, like it used to be under the Prophet (peace be upon him). I'd be happy to help you out with any questions you might have on this. Good luck! :)