New principles from the West, defensive analysis of Islam and not least, the secular education systems that ruled out traditional legal doctrines, all urged an approach to a new legal practice. Both Muslim administrators and Muslim reformists felt that the Sharia should be practical and similar to the Western codes. The earliest sign of a move in this direction was the “Mecelle” that the Ottoman Turkish authorities began to apply as a Civil Code in 1876. This was a Hanafi codification of certain parts of the Sharia, designed for practical purposes. In some former Ottoman territories (such as Iraq and Israel) remained partially in force. The Egyptian reformer Muhammad Abdu (1849-1905) called for a new, creative approach to Ijtihad (the quest for Islamic interpretation). This meant ignoring the traditions of the schools and realizing an eclectic approach to the whole tradition. His purpose was to define and embed the rules of the needs of independent Muslim communities in administrative, institutional forms.
When senior jurists began discussing the Iranian constitution in 1906, the Shiite tradition demonstrated its ability to adapt to modern legislative techniques.

With the retreat of colonial and mandate authorities in the Middle East and elsewhere, modern Muslim nations have largely passed pragmatic, eclectic laws based on both Muslim tradition and Western principles. The influence of Sharia was strongest in the traditional areas of marriage, divorce and inheritance. Some countries (such as Tunisia) have passed extremely progressive personal status laws, while maintaining a very creative interpretive relationship between the code and the tradition of fiqh. The Egyptian lawyer Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri has argued that Sharia may be an effective source of the codification practice. Abd al-Razzaq has been involved in drafting new civil codes for many Arab countries.

If codification is one aspect of the legacy of nineteenth-century reform, then Islamic fundamentalism is another one, which is more complex. This term is used in many ways, not always with professional care. Fundamentalism in the history of religious doctrines denotes movements that deny the authority of tradition and overleap the accumulated historical, spiritual experiences of the community in order to return to the resources, to early generations, to the foundations. In this sense, there is a recurring fundamentalist tendency in the history of Islam, such as the Zahiri (literal interpreters) and the Selefis (returning to the original generations). The term fundamentalist is also used to describe groups that represent radical political views. It is no coincidence that, for example, from the Wahhabis of the eighteenth-century to the twentieth-century Muslim Brotherhood, they are all fundamentalists, in strictly doctrinal sense. The Selfies look at Ibn Taymiyyah, the forefather of the Selefi theory, as a symbol and hero. The situation is similar with Sayed Qutb, one of the defining ideologists of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was executed in Egypt in 1966.

The Islamic Revolution of Iran (1978-1979) is called by some as a fundamentalist movement, but in a strictly doctrinal sense this is not the case. In the theory that underlay Khomeini's Ayatollah propaganda, which gave him legitimacy, the legal thinking of Shiite Islamic tradition played a central role. Khomeini relied on traditions, did not abandon or cheapen them. Eventually, the tradition was not incompatible with Iran's constitutional and legal structures and political institutions.

Today, the application of Islamic jurisprudence in a Muslim country may be divided into three different categories. In the twentieth century, jurisprudence was subordinated to Sharia in Iran and Saudi Arabia, while in other countries Sharia only influenced the practice of law. In Algeria, for example, Sharia is not explicitly mentioned as a source of jurisprudence, but mixed marriages were banned, as in most Muslim societies. Sharia was cited as a source in Kuwait and Bahrain, but considered by Qatar and Syria as the "main" source and Mauritania as the "sole source". Many modern Muslim constitutions do not mention Sharia - Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Iraq, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia and Turkey - and declare their jurisprudence as independent of Sharia. In general, however, Sharia law was at least partially in force, even if its application varied from country to country. In 2002, Sharia was reintroduced in Afghanistan and parts of Nigeria, while efforts were made to achieve similar adaptations in Malaysia and Indonesia.

After 2001, especially because of associating Islam with terrorism, a new approach was needed to reject false accusations that Sharia law is a seed-bed of violence. In July 2005, over 170 leading Muslim religious scholars from 40 different countries gathered in Amman, Jordan in an international Islamic conference. They endorsed religious edicts that banned the declaration of any Muslim an apostate and limited such credentials to qualified clerics from the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence. All major religious authorities signed this petition, including Sheikh Al Azhar, Muhammad Sayid Tantawi, Iraqi Ayatollah Al Sayid Ali al-Sistani, Mufti Ali Juma'a of Egypt, Mufti of the Omani Sultanate Ahmad bin Hamad al-Khalili, Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Sheikh Izzeddine al-Khateeb, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi Sheikh from Qatar-Egypt and many others. Representatives of all four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiʿi and Hanbali), Jafari Shiite school, Zaydi school, Ibadhi school in Oman and Zahiri school (referred to the Muslim movements based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab) confirmed who is to be considered a Muslim.

Well, we've reached here fourteen centuries after the Quran was revealed. As the revelations took roots in the hearts and minds, they brought a golden age to human civilization and the Order of Divine Legitimacy (Sharia) could play a major role. At that time, the matter who is considered Muslim or non-Muslim was not raised, though Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus were all Muslims in the Quran. So, the HUMAN is Muslim who submits him/herself to the will of one God, believes in Him, in His Books, in his Angels and in the Last Judgement. And today, the emblematic representatives of the Umma are still debating that whom should be considered as Muslim. Perhaps that they are those who do not meet the criteria.

Islamic law has been throughout the history of Islamic culture the prime focus of intellectual effort. It is a complex affair. It is a structure in which several traditions of juristic thought and many types of social reality have had to be discovered to be in some kind of justificatory harmony with one another and with the texts of revelation. For the Muslim community, the assimilation of its messages to the needs of the current generation, now as in the past, is a challenge that requires spiritual devotion and inspiration, as well as a generally acknowledged religious duty. Cohabitation is demanding the urgent need for legal harmonization, which necessitates the establishment of passages between Sharia and other secular jurisprudences, and the similar use and interpretation of legal terminologies.
For this, it is essential to create a source of law that is the contemporary interpretation of the Quran in the 21st century, from which fiqh and secular law scholars can form a common comprehension and application of law. That's what my work serves.

References are taken from Oxford Islamic Studies Online: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0473